Fredledingue

I'm not sure if I will include IO.SYS because it's supposed to be created during disk formating and also because I'm not sure it's possible to replace it even in DOS without error or that it's safe to do that. Note: If you face the "Drive running in DOS compatibility mode" issue after applying LLXX's ESDI_506.PDR version 4.10.2225, then use version 4.10.2222. Note: batch script updated! (Added: Fdisk.exe)

I don't know how the 0.1% of users still on w98 could treathen M$...

I have Nero6, but ok... let's assume it's the same... I removed everything which was not Nero main folder, Cdi folder and Uninstall folder. HTH

The best way to fix videos is VirtualDub. It's not that difficult to figure out. Just click yes and let him reparsing the file. It can take a few minutes. When it's open, select Video ==> Direct Stream Copy. Then Save Avi, save under another name. HTH

dencorso, Q311561.exe is an installer, I can't etract individual files via batch script. My IO.SYS on my root drive at the moment dates from dec 2001. Is it the latest updated version?

Excellent tutorial on how to use FDISK: http://fdisk.radified.com/ (if it's your first time, you definetely have to read it) As I can see the catch is, finaly, to get a suitable bootable floppy with the updated files either by downloading the M$ Q311561 patch here before creating your boot floppy (then if you want, re-apply MDGx's BHDD30 update) or by downloading BOOT98SC.EXE from bootdisk.com and replace the files but the ME version should work, since updated files are from ME. During the w98 installation, when the installer reboot, you have to press F8 (or Ctrl on some computers) and reboot in DOS. Then replace the files (both those from the 48BitLBA - Break 137Gb barrier - patch and from BHDD30.zip.) to avoid system crash or other problems. You must also replace scandisk.exe from MDGx's package SCANFRAG (Thanks Dencorso for this info). To facilitate this task I wrote a batch script. Instead of typing every command one by one, just type the location and name of the bat file containing htis code. This script works if all the files are located in the same directory as that of the bat file. The source directory not being coded in. You must pick the files manualy from an updated system and copy them to the directory where you will place the batch script. Before gathering all the files from theirs Windows locations you must have applied all these patches (already mentioned above): Q311561 BHDD30 48BitLBA SCANFRAG It will aslo open system.ini to allow you the make the changes for more than 512Mb of memory. Code Updated 8th July 2008 @echo off echo Support for hard discs larger than 125Gb move C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS\ESDI_506.PDR C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS\ESDI_506.OLD copy ESDI_506.PDR C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS\ESDI_506.PDR move C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32\IOS.VXD C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32\IOS.old copy IOS.VXD C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32\IOS.VXD attrib -s -h -r IO.SYS move C:\IO.SYS C:\IO.old copy IO.SYS C:\IO.SYS attrib +s +h +r IO.SYS move C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\SCANDSKW.EXE C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\SCANDSKW.old copy SCANDSKW.EXE C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\SCANDSKW.EXE move C:\WINDOWS\SCANDSKW.EXE C:\WINDOWS\SCANDSKW.old copy SCANDSKW.EXE C:\WINDOWS\SCANDSKW.EXE move C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\DSKMAINT.DLL C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\DSKMAINT.old copy DSKMAINT.DLL C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\DSKMAINT.DLL move C:\WINDOWS\System\DSKMAINT.DLL C:\WINDOWS\System\DSKMAINT.old copy DSKMAINT.DLL C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\DSKMAINT.DLL move C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\DSKMAINT.DLL C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\DSKMAINT.old copy DSKMAINT.DLL C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\DSKMAINT.DLL move C:\WINDOWS\System\DSKMAINT.DLL C:\WINDOWS\System\DSKMAINT.old copy DSKMAINT.DLL C:\WINDOWS\System\DSKMAINT.DLL move C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\DEFRAG.EXE C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\DEFRAG.old copy DEFRAG.EXE C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\DEFRAG.EXE move C:\WINDOWS\DEFRAG.EXE C:\WINDOWS\DEFRAG.old copy DEFRAG.EXE C:\WINDOWS\DEFRAG.EXE move C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\CVTAPLOG.EXE C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\CVTAPLOG.old copy CVTAPLOG.EXE C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\CVTAPLOG.EXE move C:\WINDOWS\CVTAPLOG.EXE C:\WINDOWS\CVTAPLOG.old copy CVTAPLOG.EXE C:\WINDOWS\CVTAPLOG.EXE move C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\FORMAT.COM C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\FORMAT.old copy FORMAT.COM C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\FORMAT.COM move C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\EBD\FDISK.EXE C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\EBD\FDISK.old copy FDISK.EXE C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\EBD\FDISK.EXE move C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\fdisk.exe C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\fdisk.old copy FDISK.EXE C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\fdisk.exe move C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\ADVPACK.DLL C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\ADVPACK.old copy ADVPACK.DLL C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\ADVPACK.DLL move C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\W95INF32.DLL C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\W95INF32.old copy W95INF32.DLL C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\W95INF32.DLL move C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\SCANDISK.EXE C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\SCANDISK.old copy SCANDISK.EXE C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\SCANDISK.EXE move C:\WINDOWS\SCANDISK.EXE C:\WINDOWS\SCANDISK.old copy SCANDISK.EXE C:\WINDOWS\SCANDISK.EXE edit C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.INI Any comment?

The easiest way to go, is the unofficial Service Pack 3.2 beta. (see user project section, in the stickies) by Gape. It's beta,... but everything is "beta" here. (I mean it's fine. For any problem post here.) HTH

All this is very beautiful. But if so, why is Vista slower than XP, why does it take 10x more disc space, why does it need 4x more memory, why it can't run old softwares, why do I still need an antivirus, why some stuffs don't work as expected? Why I don't see what's good?I'm sure, many things have been improved, unfortunately I don't know what and if someone tells me I don't undesrtand what it is. But ok, we will admit Vista () is better eventhought we can't see it. And if we notice negative points it's only because we are ignorant. Back to Modular Windows: The idea (I reapeat it's just an idea thrown by an analyst), is that users would install the core of the OS, then add what he wants.What is interresting is not so much the customized setup, but the idea of core OS, for those who want pure computing power. (That's what we miss with XP and Vista) Today too many things made XP and Vista way too complicated and slow. With a modular install, you would install only what is relevant to your hardware and needs. Then you would update only the parts which you had installed. From M$ side, the developement would not go through Windows versions, but through mudule versions. Modular Windows

I never complained about eye-candy. I like it in fact. And many of us like it so much that they even did an "Vistaish sidebar" and other "revolution packs" for w98. You can tell me about all the improvements in Vista with your incomprehensible jargon and acronymes, if the popular opinion is, at the end of the day, that Vista is not better (or even sucks), it doesn't count. Sorry.

Hi! Crahak, nice to see you here! Vista is not an upgrade, it's a cosmetic patch. Well, what? Hoo-Hah!? Huh?! You take your mouse, click on a little square representing a folder (a virtual one, but on Vista it can be a virtual virtual folder), then double-click on a little squares representing some image, video or text datas and it opens in the ad-hoc application. Fantastic! Incredibly easy! This principle is still in use on Vista and nothing has changed in respect to this habit. For the expert, there might be a world of differences between w95 and Vista, but for 99% of users, it's only the color and themes displayed on the desktop that changed. The mouse and the keyboard haven't: You still use them the same way as 15 years ago. The rest, increased input and output devices are only hardware, nothing to do with Windows version. Take two computers with the same hardware, install a "ten years old Windows" on one (admitting you have proper drivers and softwares) and Vista on the other, you will use both computers in exactely the same way. 10 years and it's still the same. Isn't it amazing? So, the only thing that make new OSes attractive is not "a new experience" but purely technical improvement: More stability and better network integration (if you need it). I'll stop here. Now back to the topic: My idea about OS is this: Modular Windows I'm surprised there was no more comment... If M$ does that (be it in 2014) I'll be buying... (And if M$ doesn't charge MORE to allow you to have LESS as they do nw with the "right to downgrade".)

One thing our friends from the developer team could do is to compile e-mail addresses from everyone interrested in case the w95/98/me forum shut down. Just in case.

SlugFiller M$ doesn't force anyone to upgrade (if yes we wouldn't sit in front of our w98 machine, sorry Ben, I mean w9x) It's the software developers who force us to because it's easier to manage one version than two or three. And they do that when they forbid the installation on w9x eventhought you have all the updates and KegeX installed. Sorry but I can't blame M$ for comapny xyz to add a w9x blocker on their installer just because they introduced a few XP-only API calls (most of them useless - see VirtualDub support for w98 thread). But I do blame M$ for not releasing decent OSes, up to our expectation given that they are the biggest and whealthiest software comapny. I also blame them for not choosing simplier solutions for home users etc. I don't blame them for having 90% of market shares. That's the goal of any business. But I do blame for they decadence. Balmer and Billius Gateus Ceasar are like old roman emperors laying on a sofa and not seeing what their legions of developers are doing. But there is one glitter of hope: Modular Windows. Not for tomorrow but if that become reality we could all be saved and spared the bloat.

I agree. It's more disapointement with Vista than hate. Sure M$ has a questionable policy for imposing its new products, but that's questionable only to the extent that these new products are not better than the previous ones. XP had advantages over w98 (compelling for some, unsignificant for others) but was much less secure, more complex and slower. Disadvantages ofset advantages but all in all, it was still possible to understand those who said XP was better than w98, from personal point of view. With Vista we were all at odds finding a single improvement from XP that was significant and which could turn the balance if its favor. Hence the discontent when M$ annonced that XP would be not for sale anymore sort of forcing new buyers to buy Vista. But nobody is forcing XP or w9x users to upgrade. Vista cannot be or is not recommanded to be installed on non-new computers. As a matter of fact, M$ deliberately or not, ignored the huge market of existing platform upgrade and focused on new hardwares, more specificaly EOM distribution. (who today buys a PC and Windows Vista separeately?) There is an agreement between manufacturers and M$: The first will sell Vista pre-installed, the second, in return, will rise windows minimal requirements to push poeple to buy new hardware. That would be working if the new hardware/software combo would offer a major plus for the client. But it doesn't and the model doesn't work anymore. New hardware may still have something more than, say, from 2 years ago, but nothing terrific. And as Windows Vista is concerned, there is realy nothing better: It's rather a decline. No one would buy a new computer to run Vista and few would buy Vsta to run a new computer. Only those without comparison spot would be satsfied with a Vista computer: Eiter because their last one was very old or because it's their first one ever. Conclusion, if M$ (and also other software companies and hardware makers) don't offer better products this "forced upgrade" policy will backlash and hurt their sales and reputation. Otherwise, poeple can live happy under the tyrany if it's a good one.

True but consumers are not total idiots neither and learn fast the technical things: They listen to friends, read newspapers, Pa' starts reading PC Mag.. and finaly notice that the 5 years old XP computer is doing as well if not better than their new Vista computer. No it isn't. Business-wise it makes perfect sense. Their profits have probably never been higher. It's also a form of "conspiracy" with hardware companies - bigger software that needs bigger hardware that needs bigger software. The perfect business model to make progressive sales of newer products without worrying about whether people actually want or need to upgrade - simply by leaving them with no choice. .... It's too bad the main non-business oriented competition is quite nearly the exact opposite of user-friendly. It has quite the potential, but ends up trying to hard and falling far short. Us end-users end up having only 98 as the middle-ground. I don't think this model will last forever.M$ tought they could play that game again. Nope. XP was a true improvement regarding stability, remote management/maintenance and network but more importantly upgrading your hardware to XP specs alone was a huge improvement already even when you didn't install it. A few more ram and a faster cpu allowed you to install XP but boosted w98's stability and speed also, so you would upgrade your hardware anyway. Not today. Today a 1.4 Ghz processor with 512 Mb of ram is enough to run instantly every normal apps. The need for 2 Gb and dual core is not compelling. M$ profits are stellars just because there is no concurrence (so to speak) and because IT industry has been booming and keep on booming. What we see now with Vista is finaly discontent from end-users and businesses alike. ...and lower sales. see my comment on this news Interresting reading.

No it isn't. Business-wise it makes perfect sense. Their profits have probably never been higher. It's also a form of "conspiracy" with hardware companies - bigger software that needs bigger hardware that needs bigger software. The perfect business model to make progressive sales of newer products without worrying about whether people actually want or need to upgrade - simply by leaving them with no choice. Sure, this sucks royally for the end-user, but they're not aiming for customer satisfaction, only for high profit. That's business for you. It's too bad the main non-business oriented competition is quite nearly the exact opposite of user-friendly. It has quite the potential, but ends up trying to hard and falling far short. Us end-users end up having only 98 as the middle-ground. I don't think this model will last forever. M$ tought they could play that game again. Nope. XP was a true improvement regarding stability and remote management/maintenance and network but more importnatlt upgrading your hardware to XP specs alone was a huge imporvement technicaly. A few more ram and a faster cpu allows you to install XP but is a huge imporvement for w98's stability so you would upgrade your hardware anyway. Not today. Today a 1.4 Ghz processor with 512 Mb of ram is enough to run instantly every normal apps (I'm not talking of Adobe Fotoshop or crazy games, I mean consoles used by banks, travel agencies etc) and there is no need to double that. So where Vista wouldn't install or run smoothly, Vista is not installed and one Vista license is not sold. The same can be told for the software uncompatible with Vista. Nobody will by a new version of the program just to have Vista. Poeple will simply ignore Vista instead. M$ profits are stellars just because there is no concurrence (so to speak) and because IT industry has been booming and keep on booming. What we see now with Vista is finaly discontent from end-users and businesses alike. ...and lower sales. see my comment on this news Interresting reading.

No worry: that's because you come from Quebec, so when you listened "e" (in english) you thought it was "i" (in french). I hope will you recover your datas with tha advises above. Try not to use the Hard drive at all and it was a good idea to let the pc running and not touch it.Avoid the internet if the cache is on this partition.

Nothing is perfect under the sun... However we (w9x users) all feel deception that M$ dumped this serie to the trash bin with contempt. W98 shortcomings have been fallen one by one since 1998. Last updates are as new as april 2008. With minimal efforts and investments M$ could have improved w98 even better. It's already quiet stable (far from the nightmare of w98FE on old computers - w98SE is much more stable on new computers). With M$ team of developer it could have been possible to make it realy stable. Some are saying "it's impossible because the kenel is such and such". BS: it's always possible to improve things as long as you have the source code. And they would be selling this OS by the millions as we speak. Instead they followed a line leading to Vista, the "Frankenstein OS", sold almost only as pre-installed platform (EOM) on new sold computers. No way you install Vista on a computer more than 3 years old. That's pretty silly from M$ management. Some of those who'v got this EOM install of Vista are asking where they could buy XP. And M$, who is not afraid of ridicule, anonced, as if it was huge +, that owners of "pro" version of Vista will have the "right to downgrade (to XP)" [sic]! Hallucinating

You know... I think they are not testing their laptop and PC before launching them on the market. I mean they don't test even a single one before commercialisation and industrial production. They pass the hurdles to the retail seller who has to tell clients "Yeah, with Toshiba laptops it's always like that and if you take Asus you will get the same kind of problems...". And it's the same with Vista. They manage to show Bill Gates a desktop with no BSOD, then go ahead. How come they epected that the first tech-savvy user will not immediately notice abnormal HDD activity? Both at software and hardware maufacturers there is a total lack of care and professionalism.

If the HDD comes from a system with Nvidia videocard and the new sytem has an Ati then Windows might not boot. To be on the save side I would uninstall drivers for chipset, soundcard and videocard first. I was also thinking that it couldn't be that simple. I also recommand uninstalling drivers (if any).

You should have seen all the endless fights we had on long blocked or trashed threads here. On only on this forum but anywhere you went tere was always someone telling us "upgrade to XP and get a life." Vista sort of stopped that. The most shocking with Vista is that we couldn't imagine that an OS could still slow down a computer with the hardware we have today. On modern hardware the difference of speed is minimal betwen a tweaked XP and w98++ (with suitable drivers). But Vista succeed in making 2 years old PC not strong enough to run it! Vista's lack of performance is uneven and random. It's not like everything is slower. Some tasks can go pretty fast, while other would be abnormaly slow for a top-end computer. And it seems that every one has its own little problem. For example here, the OEM gadget calculator is showing a system error! And we can't even watch DivX movies properly. There are tons of things to be said about Vista. But everything reminds me of what we said about XP and what we said about XP is still there, unadressed in the new version. These sort of complains about XP (like bloat, slowliness etc) that we now have again with Vista were eclipsed in XP by the huge improvement in system stability from wME and w98 and also by the huge security issue that was the true new nightmare. Today, nothing is large enough to hide Vista's size on disc and the plethore of other absurdities!

What I like with the Vista saga is that XP users are now in the same boat as w9x users. XP users used to call us idiots for staying with w9x, told us to buy more ram and move to XP. Today it's them who are the "idiots" for not moving to the latest windows to date while they are resisting pressure against non-sens bloat. The need for a "different aproach of computer use" and for "rethinking OS desing" is totaly artificial and yes, probably put upon us to sell more hardware and also to give a pretext to sell a new OS. M$ wanted to create something new and different so that we would buy it. That was not bad in itself, except that it came with a technical regression so patethic, discouraging and sad.

Spot On! Excellent! M$ thinks that a computer is build to enjoy the OS, without installing your software of choice. I can say that personaly I never use a single app which comes with Windows, except mplayer2.exe and "Find". If M$ produce intentionaly deficient OSes in order to boost hardware sales (which is more than a possibility) it's goind to backlash them in the face one day or another. Welcome to the board!

First try v. 4.10.2225, then v. 4.10.2222 if you are still in DOS compatibility mode. (Not every PC supports v. 4.10.2225). You can do in Windows (then reboot),since you are already in trouble. (Using DOS is required during a fresh Windows98 OS install).

Already an old article, but he does still support w98. (Dropped w95 thought. ) source

I got to agree with you on that. It was just that I was using it to download youtube videos, but I now realise that there are other methods of doing so. Youtube video play fines, embedded in webpages. If you know how to store youtube videos on the hard disk for off-line viewing please post it here because theoricaly you can't.