cov3rt

could i just modify an existing driver ( mobility x600 ) to support windows 98? how / where would i add the device id and inf file? i have access to both catalyst 6.2 and the mobility x600 driver for w2k and xp which happens to mention win9x in one the text documents, although i was not able to pick it up on my previous setup today, however, the reasons could vary for that, what can i do as far as modifying? this is what one of the mobility x600 inf files say - ;** General Install Requirements ALL OSs and ATI Cards [startup];** DirectX version LDXV=8OS=WIN_2KNoAskDxMessage=1 ;The second dialog message hide when installing display driver on OS that doesn't have DirectX;NoAskDXMessage=1;** Include the following line if want reboot Dlg after silent install (/K switch);ShowRebootDlg=1;**Asking to remove display driver before install Ati driver ;AskUninstall=1[bootResolution];DALDefaultModeBCD=HHhh,VVvv,CCcc,RRrr;DALRULE_NOFORCEBOOT=0;HH hh - Horizontal frequency in decimal, as an example 1024 will be written as 1024; VV vv - Vertical frequency in decimal, as an example 768 will be written as 0768; CCcc - Colour depth in decimal (0004, 0008, 0016, 0032 ); RR rr - Refresh Rate in decimal, as an example 100 Hz will be written as 0100;for example:;DALDefaultModeBCD=1280,1024, 0032, 0060;DALRULE_NOFORCEBOOT=0;** Install only on one of these OSs (WINXP, WIN2K, WINNT,WIN9X);OS=WIN2K;** Show Readme message before installing driver ;ShowReadme=ATIDrive\readme.txt;**Not ask dialog service pack message (only WinNT4);NoAskServicePack=1;**ListOnADDRemove "0" delete name "ATI Display Driver" from ADD/Remove Applet,otherwise ("1") it appears on ADD/RemoveListOnADDRemove=1 [WINXP64A] [WINXP64] [WINXP] [WIN2K]Label=R6R6=DriverPath_R6,0x5460:0x20061028DriverPath_R6=\2KXP_INF,C2_19746.INF [WINNT] [WIN9X] [ATISMART]

the laptops is one of the last few to use the older ide / pata interface so that part is good, however the part you mentioned that there may be resource conflicts that may or may not be fixable is not which probably is the main issue. all this frustration is beginning me to look towards rleows ram patch but it would seem that i would only need that for systems that have 64 GB hard drives or larger, because for some reason, the ram issues seem to cause conflict in correlation with the hard drive size, i could be wrong but im just saying that the recent systems i worked with in windows 95 had 384 MB ram with 31 GB hard drive and no issues, then again, that was windows 95 and not windows 98, but from what i remember, i actually had a temporarily good working windows 98se computer that i sold with 1 GB ram and geforce 7300gs but ending up producing resource conflicts to which i was unaware of that would happen. also, i read somewhere that you could just use the updated fdisk.exe file from the 263044 update on a working windows 98 system and recompile it to make a new updated windows 98 boot disk iso to format 64 GB or larger hard drives properly but i just did this few minutes ago and it made no difference, when i select NO for maximum size, and try to create a manual size, it still gives me a maximum of 10781 and even if i put down 1 MB or any number, it still comes out formatted as 74 GB within the operating system. i actually lied about the part of testing the updated fdisk within the os, yes, the size still was limited in the prompt screen but now within the os, i have a 6.82 GB partition, in fdisk i randomly selected about 7000 megabytes and to my belief, it came out as roughly that. now, the size is a bit small but im not too worried about that, i want to see if the os functions any better with the hard drive being at this size.

the laptops is one of the last few to use the older ide / pata interface so that part is good, however the part you mentioned that there may be resource conflicts that may or may not be fixable is not which probably is the main issue. all this frustration is beginning me to look towards rleows ram patch but it would seem that i would only need that for systems that have 64 GB hard drives or larger, because for some reason, the ram issues seem to cause conflict in correlation with the hard drive size, i could be wrong but im just saying that the recent systems i worked with in windows 95 had 384 MB ram with 31 GB hard drive and no issues, then again, that was windows 95 and not windows 98, but from what i remember, i actually had a temporarily good working windows 98se computer that i sold with 1 GB ram and geforce 7300gs but ending up producing resource conflicts to which i was unaware of that would happen. also, i read somewhere that you could just use the updated fdisk.exe file from the 263044 update on a working windows 98 system and recompile it to make a new updated windows 98 boot disk iso to format 64 GB or larger hard drives properly but i just did this few minutes ago and it made no difference, when i select NO for maximum size, and try to create a manual size, it still gives me a maximum of 10781 and even if i put down 1 MB or any number, it still comes out formatted as 74 GB within the operating system.

well i now tried the official dell driver but the setup did not detect the inf, same with the firegl v3100, i also tried to install the graphics as the ati 9600 because apparently it is near indentical to the ati x600 but that route did not work and now the laptop is really messed up lol. drive c and d are both using ms dos compatibility mode and regardless of going into safe mode to fix the resource conflict that the pci controller has, it makes no difference, it either will hang at the loading screen or if i dont touch the settings, remove the controller and go into windows, it will detect it and ask for reboot and still have the same problem. god windows 95 and 98 are a pain to work with . i did mess with the graphics settings when first installing windows 98 for this dell latitude d810 laptop because it detected two and since i wanted the ati x600 only, and not for the other display adapter to conflict, i made it so that the adapter does not show in all hardware profiles through device manager and disabled it and from there, there was some other things i fiddled with and made it so that only one display adapter showed which by the hardware id, it came up as the mobility x600. so could it be that fiddling with the adapters possibly created problems in installation of the video driver? but like i said, i did check the hardware id and it came up as the mobility x600 so whats up? my expertise and problem solving is limited so im most likely gonna have to reinstall the os as the easiest route at this point, but before then, is there anything i can know that could help me prevent the problems i've been having? also forget to mention, i limited the vcache to 0 for both min and maxfilecache and set maxphyspage=10000 for maximum compatibility, also installed chipset drivers and almost all official updates before the graphics driver problem. also recently in my builds, i checked the esdi_506.pdr file and noticed it mentioning a lot of errors like cylinder mismatch, something to do with irq conflict and other stuff, all of these builds had 80 GB hard drives or larger and possibly pheonix bit shift bios which from what i researched could bring about the problems i experienced. i never had any of these issues with virtual memory disabling out of nowhere or weird problems with hard drives 40 GB and under when formatted at 31.5 GB or lower through fdisk in win95 or 98 because fdisk wont format 64 GB or higher, and when you try to set a fixed amount and not the maximum size, it just gives you a max of like 10750 megabytes or something like that and then shows the max size within the operating system. also i had no luck applying the fdisk patch for 64 GB or higher drives or the other update 243450 for large ide drives in w98se, the updates made no difference in solving any problems in my recent windows 98 builds. the only easiest solution i would think of is to just buy or use computers with 60 GB hard drives or lower and format them to about 31 GB or lower in fdisk. and if necessary, apply the patches that i previously used and THEN put in secondary or other storage if needed, assuming there are no problems when doing that. i also forgot to mention that i tried to use an alternative to fdisk called freedos to create a fixed amount from the 80 GB hard drive i used and although it created a 31 GB partition, i was not able to get windows 98 to setup after formatting the drive, giving an error.

does anyone know if there is a driver for the ati mobility x600 on 98SE? this is for the dell latitude d810 laptop. the driver doesn't have to be official. so far i tried a few setup installer packages and they would give an error at the end of setup that the inf is not found or some other error that i don't exactly remember. what i have not tried YET is the official dell one from their site which is supposed to be designed for xp i think and i may test out a older firegl v3100 driver because it fell under the same driver from dell's site. i also looked up the hardware id below and apparently the firegl v3200 also falls under the same hardware id. hardware id- VEN_1002&DEV_3150&SUBSYS_20021028&REV_00

does anyone know if there are usb wireless adapter drivers for windows 95? i would like to try out a few usb wifi cards i found which mention windows 95 in the documents but i don't think any of them mention windows 95 on the boxes that they ship in or on the official sites, the few i researched that may have support are d link dwl-120, dwl-122, IBM Thinkpad R40 FX-C2039 802.11b Actiontec Wireless Card 91P7261 ( actually a mini pci card but would be nice to have for a laptop ) another usb one was the actiontec brand which had windows 95 in the document and win9x which i hear a lot of the time but i don't know if win9x means windows 98 first and second edition or it can also mean windows 95 / 98/ se? - [PRISM_USB1] ; Win9x AddReg = PRISM_USB1.reg, COMMON_USB.reg, COMMON_NDIS.reg, COMMON.reg CopyFiles = PRISM_DRIVER.copy, PRISM_APPLET.copy, PRISM_NDI.copy PRISM_USB1 = "Actiontec USB 802.11b Wireless Adapter"

i just wanted to bump this thread because im having / had similar issues in the past with virtual memory not working right on windows 98 and have not found a working solution yet. it seems that after a certain point of updating the system, i will notice in system properties that it mentions that "performance can be improved by enabling virtual memory", i then see that dxdiag indicates 0 MB used and programs and applications either freeze or give blue screens. i have applied that patch indicated in this post and like the op mentioned, it did fix the size of the hard drive in the virtual memory settings menu but it did not fix the issue with the virtual memory working. \ i noticed this issue upon reboot after changing the display adapter driver to the scitech snap graphics driver for the intel 910gml graphics since there is no gma 900 driver for windows 98. i had problems in the past with vbemp9x so i tried to use the scitech solution but it seems that its no better, dxdiag shows it using 15 MB of video memory, mycomputer and mydocuments folder seem to be blanked out for the fonts for some reason and sometimes on some windows, some of fonts are missing for the folders. other than that, it does seem more stable however i don't know if the scitech driver has anything to do with the virtual memory problem. is there a possible patch from rloew or someone else that can fix this issue? it would seem that limiting the hard drive to just under 32 GB would fix the issue but i'd rather do that with windows 95 which brings up another thing. why is that windows 95 does not indicate using any of the swap file through dxdiag? it always says 0 MB used or 0 MB available, no matter how many things i had open or even using a test 200 MB setting of virtual memory did not change anything. could there also be a patch for this too? i always limited the hard drive to 31 GB or lower on windows 95 with 384 MB of ram limited as well and so far, i experienced little to no freezing or errors when opening programs and working. but it would be a whole lot better if i could use perhaps 115 GB in both windows 95 and 98 without virtual memory problems, it seems that 116 GB and higher causes issues, i think this is what rleow mentioned in his site that contains various patches. the specs of the laptop im working on is the hp dv4000, specific model hp dv4217cl, it has 1 GB ram, limited to 512 MB right now, although i had it working perfectly fine with 1 GB ram limited to maxphyspage=40000 before the virtual memory issue, the hard drive is 74.5 GB, i can provide other specs if needed.

you could try the dell inspiron 600m, make sure to pick one with the 64 MB of mobility radeon 9000 graphics, because some only come with 32 MB. there is a driver for the ethernet, you can put a mini pci wifi card, and pretty much find drivers for all the other devices, however, i would rather use this laptop for a windows 95 build with the pcmcia slot and wifi card combo being a perfect match with the other specs, i tested it and almost all drivers were there except for some reason i could not get the pcmcia slot to work or at least i didn't know how to set it up, could possibly be because of missing drivers or updated drivers needed too, i also couldn't find a working ethernet driver, with windows 98, some games may need up to 128 MB or possibly 256 MB of video ram and possibly a faster processor so the inspiron 600m wouldn't be the best choice. the only other laptops i've researched so far ( i recently got into the laptop business, i buy and sell them, and i noticed the hp dv4000 models with mobility radeon x700 graphics would possibly be a good candidate, dell latitude d810 with mobility radeon x600 graphics, or dell inspiron 8600 with geforce fx go 5650 128 MB gpu )

this may not be the best question here but does anyone know how to properly configure and make pcmcia wifi cards work on windows 95 / 98? i put the intel pro wireless 2011b card in a laptop build with w98se and was never able to get it work though to wierd resource problems. when i checked device manager, it did not even let me change the automatic settings or go into the box, it just showed kind of a glitched or messed up tab of the resources as if you put two of the same boxes in one and even in safe mode, it still looked the same. i was simply wondering if anyone has had this issue and what could be the cause and how to fix it? i dont have the laptop anymore and therefore i cant give much other info. could it perhaps have anything to do with updating the pcmcia controllers / cardbus adapter? also, when configuring pcmcia devices from the start, what options would i select, because it mentioned something about conflicting 16 bit with 32 bit during the windows 98 setup and also on windows 95 and some other stuff and i just clicked yes and no to some of the messages but i dont remember exactly what they meant.

it does not seem that i will need to install aol 7.0 because i already have up to dial up networking 1.4 and internet explorer 5.5 with service pack 2. however, i may check out netscape 7.2 if there is any crucial files that come with it or for any benefit of using the web browser itself. according to someone else's post in another forum, netscape 7.2 should work on windows 95 if deselecting all options in the second component pane during installation, except for classic skin and it should work fine.

thanks for the info, i use firefox 2.0.0.20 ( modified of course ) as the main browser, hardly ie 5.5 with sp2 unless there is something that doesnt work in firefox but even then, i would actually use opera 10.10 which seems to be the last ( non modified ) version to work on windows 95. for some reason, firefox doesn't display some web pages correctly, but opera 10.10 does. i did not know about the active scripting issue in ie 5.5, i will definitely disable it if using ie 5.5. also, would you happen to know if there is any specific files aol 7.0 would update?

this is odd, i have a working windows 95 build that works with acpi support, computer automatically shut downs when selecting shut down option without showing the "it is now safe to turn of your computer" message. i believe windows 95 osr 2.5 was the first to implement this function, im not sure why other people had problems with acpi, even with windows 98 which should have better support.

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? i dont care if the drives are limited in performance, as long as they appear in device manager as one detected dvd burner and one hard drive without any issues, that is all i need.

Ummm... I already have Flash 11 installed, and from Adobe's official archives. Every Flash Player version as far back as Flash 2 is still downloadable from Adobe. I don't have any problems with modern web content using Opera 12 (with the exception of obscure Unicode characters, and stuff like Java and WebGL, which I never need). Did Microsoft release any Windows 98 updates to improve the stability of the networking stack? this may be off topic to your specific problem but i just wanted to say that windows 95 and 98 carry lots of updates that improve stability, whether its official ones or unofficial, however, i try to find as many official ones first, before going to the unofficial ones, and i only use the unofficial ones if i really need them for a certain purpose like the extended usb mass storage update from rleow which works perfect on windows 95. i recently acquired over 20 hotfixes for windows 95 from looking up articles from kbupdate.info, i requested them from cached sites that had the option to request them and they were sent fairly quick. with all this being said, you should have over 100 official updates for both w95 and 98, if you have something like half of that or not many, then you may see noticeable issues like the ones you described, since these older operating systems rely heavily on important updates / additional updated files, they can run fairly poorly without them.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the point of this project was only to update the Windows 95 Shell (i.e. the NON-Desktop Update/IE4/98 shell) to include functions that were added to the Desktop Update/IE4/98 shell so that the 95 shell could be used under 98 and/or with things like 98 Lite, etc... So for anyone already running the Desktop Update/IE4/98 shell under 95 it would actually be a downgrade and be incompatible with the newer shell if installed. WarCraft 3 incompatibility with Windows 95 was one of several factors that forced me to move from Windows 95 to Windows 98SE several years ago. Oddly enough the other factors that forced the decision at the time have now been remedied, but I digress. I never got past the "unsupported operating system" part on 95 back then, but admittedly at the time I didn't have the first clue how to begin to circumvent it. WarCraft 3 and the Frozen Throne do work properly under Windows 98SE though, I played them for years that way. However one of the later Blizzard patches (1.24B) breaks the game under Windows 98. I reported this to Blizzard tech support but of course they never gave any meaningful response, they never even bothered to try to tell me to upgrade or the like, they just acted like they didn't comprehend what I was saying. I don't know if it was ever corrected later or not. So, you may need to verify that the version you are installing is prior to 1.24B, and I would be very careful about the digital version, which may introduce this or other incompatibilities. thats interesting you had similar problems with warcraft 3 on windows 98SE, well, at least it still worked from running it off the already installed program copied to the hard drive. i have 1.26 version of wc3 the frozen throne, and i believe when i tested it on windows 98SE, it was also at least 1.26. my goal someday is to get wc3 running on windows 95 though, because i think that would be really cool to do and i don't see it being too hard for someone to do. of course, we would have to get it working properly on windows 98SE first lol.

Its not alowed to redistribute unredistributables. You ought to have read the Rules, already... sorry, i have not read the rules completely, but thanks for letting me know, i will look it at more thoroughly.

for web browsers, i would use firefox 9.01 if you have kernelex 4.5.2 installed on W98SE. seemed to work well the last time i used it. also with the adobe flash player 11.0.1.152 ( 32 bit ) plug in update, you can watch youtube videos up to 1080p. i think the flash player plug in version might have to be the non IE version. im not sure though. i have the specific file(s) but i don't know how to put it as a link or attachment here, does anyone know how to do this?

found this thread while researching on windows 95 and i was curious if there is any updated version of the shell32. i tried the sh95upd version .8 or the latest version i believe, it installed fine on my windows 95 osr 2.5 pc with most updates, official / unofficial, directx 8.0a, etc, however i was unable to shutdown the computer, even after uninstalling it, i had to manually turn off the pc and then reboot because it still wouldn't shut down after uninstalling. i only tested it today for a few minutes, i have not tested version .7 or earlier, from what i read, .7 seems to be the most stable? regardless, im still looking for a better alternative, i specifically need another api function ( i believe that is what its called ) to allow playing a certain game, warcraft 3. im not good with modifying files / using hex editors or any of that detailed complicated work, its just too much for me so i was hoping maybe someone can implement the new function or functions in a updated fix? the api is getlongpathnamew. the specific error message i got was "the msvcr80.dll file is linked to missing export kernel32.dll:getlongpathnamew." i had a similar problem on windows 98 ( that supposed to support warcraft 3 in the first place ) where i couldn't install frozen throne from the disc, reign of chaos would install fine and played but frozen throne gave errors that wouldn't allow installing it ( i dont remember the exact errors as i didnt write them down ). i tested this with and without kernelex on windows 98 and made no difference. i also tried to download from the website digitally and wouldn't let me install which gave an error message mentioning invalid path choosen, this too i researched and tried possible solutions but none of them worked, i found this ironic why warcraft 3 wouldn't install on windows 98 in all these ways. finally, i was able to get warcraft 3 working properly ( somewhat ) by copying the entire installed program folder from a working windows 2000 computer into a flash drive and then launching it from the flash drive in windows 98. however, i still faced another problem, after exiting the program and trying to load it again, windows 98 would give an error message that the program is already opened or something about quiting one ms dos program, i dont exactly remember. but i had to restart the computer, just to play it again. i tried to see if copying the program into the operating system itself would change anything, but made no difference. this too i found odd, the system was heavily updated, directx 9.0c installed, unofficial usb installed, vcache settings limited to 0 for min and max file cache and maxphyspage=40000 with 1 GB ram installed. so basically, im trying to get warcraft 3 to work on windows 95 in the way i got it working on windows 98, or at least in a similar way. however, there are obviously many issues, one would be that the ones i just mentioned, the missing api function in win95, the other one was that i got another error message at the same time of trying to launch the program which said "frozenthrone was unable to find war3.exe. please make sure your game is correctly installed, and that your frozen throne disc is in your cd-rom drive, and try again". another problem would be the installer or game rejecting launching warcraft3 because of a function they built in that mentions windows 95 as an unsupported operating system. so with all this being said, how hard would it be for someone experienced in this area to work around these issues? surely it shouldn't be too hard?

im having this new problem on windows 95 where i can't get the cisco 350 wifi card to connect to the internet. before on previous experimental builds for windows 95, i was able to connect to the internet with the same wifi card automatically without even needing a password or needing to put in any manual changes in the os, yes, i know its not secure but i was glad enough to get wireless internet to work on windows 95, although i think some builds asked for the guest password because i had a guess network and this was more secure but for some reason, different experimental builds didnt bring up that page. anyways, i can perfectly connect to the wired ethernet connection without needing to do any manual adjusted settings in the operating system and always was able to do so but now the wifi won't. there can be two reasons though for this problem that i suspect, one would be that for this build, i installed more updates and it could be that some of the updates / hotfixes were not needed or were not compatible for the os and caused issues but i don't think this would be the problem, or it could have something to do with the new router i got since i swapped to u verse internet and changed the modem / router? this, i think is probably the problem because of the newer / different technology making it harder to work with windows 95? before i had cox internet. lastly, i noticed that one wierd problem is that i can't release or renew ip addresses when using winipcfg. it gives a fatal error of dhcp server unavailable: renewing adapter. i looked up this problem on google and did save 4 pages explaining possible solutions, although i didn't really mess with the network settings just yet as i dont want to make things complicated and wanted to see if i can possibly get a better answers or solutions to my specific problem here, all the other computers in my house connect perfectly fine, but then again, they all have windows 7 and newer. there is one last solution that i can think of at the moment is to install the software utility for the wifi but in the past, i came to a point where i couldnt get it to install and the program would prevent the operating system from loading in which i needed to uninstall the program from safe mode and the wifi worked fine without it, so it was never a requirement anyways.

Now, all of the other "replace" files (#1->#7) have *only* to do with the SDK, so that you may/*must* perform #9/#10. That leaves #8 as the only relevant *operational* file, right? Besides DirectX is an *add-on* and has nothing to do with the OS, right? So, the SDK seems absolutely unnecessary. 1 - Install DX8.0a 2. Get the 8.0b package, unzip, and replace file in #8 above *** Done! Here, do a little light reading (from Wikepedia of all places) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX Please note the Direct3D reference (the only relevant file). yes, this seems more straightforward and makes more sense. i shall try it out soon and give feedback on the results. thanks for the help.

please read what i wrote completely, i put a link to the updates and it mentions which updates are official, which ones are unofficial, and which ones are misc in the thread ( not the add on / updates that i listed on the other portion that includes adobe reader 6, flash 11, etc, those may not be in the thread i gave the link to and you will need to find yourself but shouldn't be too hard to find ). most updates can be downloaded in that thread with a dl button but for some, you may have to go to a different site and / or use the wayback machine archive by copying the url and pasting it there. it will take a while to update a fresh windows 98 / 98se machine properly / and because you have to restart the system for almost every update, it will take a few hours but it is well worth it.

you can get most of the windows 98SE official updates from the link below, for some reason though, windows 95 and 98 give me wierd issues where certain updates don't get installed right, such as the dial up networking update / winsock files dont get properly updated or are missing and so you can't get the internet to work properly, it seems that there are certain files that the wizard says it needs from a certain cab file but since the path is not towards that cab region, it doesnt get installed right, what i do for this is copy these files from the cd into the same path of the update wizard so that the updates get installed properly and this method has always worked for me, i had to do this also for a cisco 350 wireless pci card for windows 95, and yes, windows 95 supports a few wifi cards. here is the thread for the updates - http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/84886-the-complete-list-of-hotfixes-updates-for-windows-98se/ and just for some reference, here is some add ons / updates that work and i have in my windows 98SE support cd that i made - adobe reader 6 nero 7.0.1.2 burning software hwmonitor 1.17 firefox 9.01 ( with kernelex installed ) winrar 3.30 microsoft framework 2.0 adobe flash 11.0.1.152 ( 32 bit ) ( works with kernelex installed for firefox, you can watch videos up to 1080p on youtube ) nusb33e ( unofficial usb mass storage drivers )

like i said, i simply want to know if it has a direct impact or not on the stability / performance of the operating system but i have not found any people who personally used directx 8.0b and what differences they saw. from what i see, wouldn't the operating system still function better with the updated files from directx 8.0b vs 8.0a in all sense?

although this may not be directly linked to your problems, your psu seems just a tad inadequate in both wattage and quality, a 350w power supply with 80 plus efficiency would be better. i never experimented with sata on windows 95 / 98 based operating systems but like mrmateczko said, you can try changing the settings in the bios to compatibility mode / ide mode and see if that helps, normally its best to do this before installing the operating system and i would actually recommend reinstalling the operating system if its a not a big problem for you and i would also have other options on the table as well before doing so. to limit the ram in system.ini, just open up system.ini from the run command and under 386en section, add "maxphyspage=20000" without the quotes and also add "minfilecache=0" and "maxfilecache=0" without the quotes under the vcache section, i personally never had slow performance with the 0 cache settings. i personally don't like to use the unofficial service pack, i used it on earlier builds but found that installing individual official updates / add ons was better. in other words, you should install all official updates in order / add ons, then kernelex. if your getting any memory related issues, it may have to do with 1 GB of ram being too much at first for windows 98SE, i found that putting in one stick of 512 MB was the trick at first, then editing the system.ini, and then adding another 512 MB worked, up to 1024 MB of ram can be detected i believe on 98SE without having special patches / manual patches, assuming you put maxphyspage=40000 and minfilecache and maxfilecache are set to 0. from what i read, you did a clean install of windows 98se but could not get a partition less than 250 GB and because of this, windows 98se couldnt work properly? if so, one way is to reinstall the os and install windows 98se the old fashioned way by using fdisk, formatting the drive with the partition size being about 120 GB, set the partition active, restart the system and go back to fdisk and do the ms-dos setup where you copy the files to the hard drive and run setup. if your interested, its available in the url below, the same method works to install windows 95 - http://www.windowsreinstall.com/win98/install98stepbystep1/indexfullpage.htm#.VU5PfPlViko

i have researched a bit on directx 8.0b on windows 95 but i could not really make sense on how to install it properly ( could not find a video showing how to update the dx files, install sdk properly, etc ). to clarify this better, i have not done this completely yet, there were a few test systems where i installed the sdk portion, it installed successfully but i don't think i even did that part right and i didn't go any further with the files because i was scared that i would mess up something. what would happen if i simply replaced the old directx files with the newer directx 8.0b files? would this basically update directx 8.0a to "directx 8.0b" or it is not as simple as that? has anyone done this before? i read that it doesn't have a direct impact on typical users but i would be so curious to know if there are any benefits it can give, i mean, wouldn't updating the directx 8.0a files to all those updated 8.0b ones with all the corrections just run games better, have less bugs, and just a more stable computer in general? if so, then why does it mentions its only for programmers, or am i wrong here?