Eck

I always use GetRight for both RapidShare and MegaUpload. No problems. There are certain files that for some reason do not support resuming but most are fine with that too. It might be because I pay for Premium accounts. Perhaps they don't allow download managers or resuming on free downloads? Not sure. Of course I wouldn't pay for Premium (and never did for a long time) unless I encountered some of the huge downloads. I just didn't have patience to wait hours and hours for being allowed to download. Torrent's are easy. I only adjusted one option in the options (encrypt files and allow legacy downloads), and just needed to check my speeds at Speedtest to fill in the proper numbers at the beginning. Otherwise it's all automatic. I just download a torrent, start uTorrent and let it login and update, then choose File, new torrent, and browse to the torrent I downloaded. It puts it in My Documents\Downloads. Then I leave it there for a period of a day or so while also leaving uTorrent running so I can be a good boy and seed it back for others. Unless I'm in a big hurry to use the stuff. Then I'm a bad boy and close down everything so I can get busy. I try not to do that too often. The seeding is also automatic.

What's with this emule? Okay for those that want it installed, but I use uTorrent. Why not have a normal torrent file available? And perhaps some RapidShare.com and/or Megaupload.com links for those who don't want to install anything? I did try emule at one time because I needed something that only was available on it. I never used it for anything else. I suppose I could go through that again since I'll be wiping my hard drive anyway once I get the new auto-patcher, but a torrent would be a lot more conveniant. I understand you can only do what you can do. So whatever, I'll do what's needed to get it. I just feel that installing unnecessary software shouldn't be needed.

Yeah, I've read about that (5000, 6000, 7000 series being better). However that's tough to do when you've got let's say a 6600GT and the release notes never say they support that card until the 8000 series (81.98) driver. That, even though the Gigabyte card I have has the 7000 series drivers on the included cd and their website. Kind of confusing as far as what to do. I've noticed that my ATI Radeon x850 Pro seems to handle 98SE better than the Gigabyte NVidia 6600GT does. I think it's all in the drivers. One thing the NVidia card can't handle is proper Windows 98SE shutdown. The card does fine with the Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (VGA). However once I install any NVidia Driver I must choose Restart instead of Shutdown, and after Windows is through exiting the desktop I push the power button on my case for 4 seconds and shut it down manually like that. If I just tell Windows to Shutdown, it will exit the desktop but then just turn off the monitor while the computer keeps humming along. So then I need to hold down the power button again to turn it off. Sometimes that way will result in Windows ScanDisk running when it starts up, telling me to choose Shutdown you bad guy. Sometimes it just starts up fine though. So to avoid any problems I just shutdown by selecting Restart and turn it off myself. Also, with the NVidia driver the Windows 98 splash screen is reduced to a smaller resolution. Looks weird. It starts full screen then changes resolution and reduces in size. This only starts happening when installing an NVidia driver. The Microsoft Standard driver handles shutdown and the splash screens normally. But who wants to use that driver? 8 bit resolution anyone? I didn't notice any problems while actually within Windows. Now, the ATI card and drivers exhibit none of these problems, and they're the ones with the so called beta driver when using the Catalyst 6.2. Go figure. The card works perfectly with ATI's beta but the NVidia's acts funky with any of their release versions. It made no difference whether I used the various 7000 series drivers or the 81.98's. Same problems. So I just installed the latest (81.98) and lived with it. I lived with it while I used the computer with the NVidia card, but am glad my fancy Antec case has the ATI card. That other case is just for a backup. Nearly identical components, but annoying because it has a noisy power supply and fans. I like the Antec quietness! Antec has the Tru-Blue 480 and the other one is a Thermaltake "Silent" Surepower 480. Yeah, I can turn down the fan speed but that makes things too hot so I leave it noisy. The Antec one is a bigger case so the low automatic fan speed still keeps it cool enough. Funny that the NVidia card and drivers in XP exhibit no problems. It just doesn't deal properly with Windows 9x. Well, livable but not perfect like the ATI card and drivers.

That's cool! Very happy if that weird stuff won't show up again. Don't see legal happening in the political, religious, all kinds of complicated kind of environment we have. But I agree 100 percent that it should be. Would solve lots and lots of problems and would enable me to actually have access to it as I no longer have contact with anybody from my youth that can get it. Miss it! Absolutely will not seek from strangers or grow. I still see headlines of homes with plants being raided. So nothing for me unless it's in a store (or if I ever travel to Amsterdam I guess). Been more than 20 years since I've so much as smelled it in the air! Anxiously awaiting the new release. An-ti-ci-pa-a-tion is keeping me waiting. Ohhh, you put tobacco in it? Ewww. I smoke Marlboro but wouldn't want to hold my breath taking a drag. Ouch!

Well, the x850PRO is listed in the inf's of only one of the extracted folders of either Catalyst 5.9 or 6.2 for 9x/Me. It is not listed in the standard inf. This is why the 5.9's setup doesn't automatically install it. That was corrected in the Catalyst 6.2 setup installer, which automatically detects the card and gets the driver from that beta driver folder's inf. It then installs the full ATI Control Panel and Smartgart support. It is described as beta support, but I enjoyed full speed gaming fun and great DVD playback, as well as the full 2D support. As far as I could tell the driver worked just as well on 98SE as the XP drivers work on XP. Haven't looked at the various inf's for a long time since everything is automatically done by ATI's setup in the 6.2's, but I recall that there were newer cards than my x850 in there as well. So it's pretty good support there unless you have a really new card. ATI added a lot of the cards when they released the Catalyst 6.2's for 9x/Me. This is not the same as the original Catalyst 6.2! Maybe that's what made you think some of the newer cards aren't supported. This Catalyst 6.2 is one that came out much later than when ATI released the Catalyst 6.2 for XP.

I've found that it's better to provide the drivers some of the updated installation sources that are provided by doing these system updates first. This, after suffering greatly from 98SE IOS bootup errors over the past year. My guess is that if the drivers are already installed some of the files aren't updated if they are in use when updaters such as the Unofficial Service Pack are installed. But when the updaters have already updated the installation sources, the driver gets its installation files from them and they all work together better. Sometimes this results in the Windows driver installer prompting you to answer whether to replace newer files or keep the newer file. I generally tell it to keep the newer file already on the system.

Well, what Windows Update says might differ depending upon what other software is installed. A lot of software, especially from Microsoft, installs system updates and some of those are duplicated on Windows Update. Even if already installed, or a corrected unofficial version is installed, these updates go ahead and do their thing regardless. I don't think re-running auto-patcher would fix an older update being installed over a better update installed by auto-patcher previously. But we would want some way to correct the problem as whatever older, buggy dll's or other dependant files installed by the older version of an update could mess things up. What's nice is that although auto-patcher would not be itself reinstall an update detected as already being on the system, it DOES have all the updates in the auto-patcher folders. So as long as we are aware of which update we need to reinstall, we can simply go to the folder and run the update again ourselves. If we don't know which one? Well, we don't live in a perfect world, unfortunately! Anyway, basically after running auto-patcher there is nothing we need from Windows Update. The only thing we need to keep watch on is the sticky thread which is regularly updated with new releases by our guru's that contain security, updated fixes, etc. Whatever is on Windows Update is not going to change for 9x as Microsoft no longer is making fixes for these operating systems. So that thread here becomes our personal Windows Update! Just be careful as there's no automatic system to determine the proper operating system to install which versions of the newer 3rd party guru releases to install. We must read the information provided and decide for ourselves accordingly. I think that between the auto-patcher's final release, 98SE2ME, and 98MP10, we have a great start for a fresh 98SE installation. Then we just need to keep watch on that sticky thread for future updates. Gosh I'm really excited about the sort of final we'll be getting of this with most things finished such as the improved installer/uninstaller stuff. The computer's about to be wiped for fresh installs of 98SE, XP, and OpenSUSE Linux. I'm still downloading stuff and reading like crazy. I bought BootIT NG so I won't have to be a prisoner to all these operating systems choices of how to partition and boot. They'll all think they're the only game in town as each partition will contain all the boot files that particular operating system needs instead of them being all dumped on the first partition and dependant upon the last operating system installed to handle things. I just hope I will understand BootIT NG enough to do it correctly. I've watched every video and printed out all the documentation but my brain still needs to process all this new stuff. It's always the guy/gal at the keyboard that actually has to use stuff properly. And it's not all easy stuff either. Just trying to get through the Novell startup stuff is making my brain hurt! But I insist that I at least understand the commands, even if I don't remember them all, before jumping in headfirst. Nice that SUSE by default now automatically installs GRUB to the Linux partition instead of overwriting the boot sector like it used to. One less hurdle. Oh! So that's what spliff's are. I'm from an older generation and/or geographic location. I never heard that description before.

soporific, What's a spliff? And, maybe we'll get lucky and never see that weird explorer window bug again? Look at the Revolution Pack thread. Tihiy seems to have located a file replaced by 98SE2ME that messes up unless the Revo Pack is installed first. Is that file possibly related? Did you get error messages about powrprof.dll (or pwrprof.dll, I forget) when you got the weird windows? I did. Seems to have disappeared with the newer 98SE2ME, 98MP10 versions. Hope it stays gone. Would be nice to know what caused that exactly, though.

My ATI Radeon x850PRO is fully supported by the Catalyst 6.2 for 9x driver and software. I can even install ATI Multimedia Center 9.08 with the DVD setup.exe downloaded from an XP machine and get the DVD player working fine. The decoder installs with the normal DVD cd checker. It'll check to be sure I have the supported ATI cd in the cd drive, but it will not download the decoder's setup.exe on 9x. But if I point it to the setup.exe I put on the hard drive that I previously saved to a cdr from an XP install, it will use that to install the DVD decoder. Just running the setup.exe alone doesn't work. I must use the ATI decoder cd check installer and direct IT to run setup.exe. The current Cyberlink decoder that is used for XP installs runs fine with MMC 9.08. Don't know about later versions of the x series, but x850's work. They claim it's a beta driver but it works perfectly. I get the ATI Control Panel, WDM drivers, Smartgart, the whole works. The previous Catalyst 5.9 also includes the beta driver for the x850, for those that prefer the older driver. However, the automatic setup does not work in 5.9. You've got to run the installer then let it tell you it didn't find a supported product, run the WDM setup from the folder it left behind, then update the display adapters from Device Manager using Have Disk and directing it to the folder with the beta driver. Gotta pick it from a list. Try not to pick the wrong one! Then you run setup for the Control Panel. You won't get Smartgart with the 5.9's. MMC 9.08 installs perfectly as above. Gotta install the DAO thing first for MMC either way. No reason to use the 5.9's though. The 6.2's work fine and setup does it automatically. You have to check the Autoexec.bat in sysedit with ATI on 9x to be sure it sets up the path statement correctly. If you already have a Path statement there, it messes it up by doubling up on things. So edit that before restarting following the driver installation.

Gosh, I also made a stupid mistake here! The LLXX vs. Anonymous EXE file I had experimented with in the past was not the ESDI_506.PDR fix, but rather the KERNEL32.DLL patch to prevent large file copy/delete problems using Explorer. I've never installed either version of the ESDI_506.PDR patch. So, wrong thread, wrong advice, and butting in where more techy (and less confused) heads dare tread! Good job. Well, I tried. I feel like Emily Litella (Gilda Radner) from Saturday Night Live. Never mind.

Heh, wish I knew precisely which ones to manually install which driver to! I only guessed at the right driver for the AGP because the Windows 95 folder was the only one to have the vxd driver in it. Besides that I thought the Via setup did a pretty good job. It installs the needed files to where they should go, mostly to the System directory but some files do get put in other places. Then it automatically removes the default Windows devices from Device Manager and when you restart the system Windows finds "new" hardware and starts doing its thing. The only mess up then is needing to point the wizard to the System folder as for some reason it doesn't find a few things automatically. I see you installed Windows 2000 versions of some of the drivers. I assume that you did that because you found out that the 98 versions didn't work? Really no problem when you installed the 2000 versions? Windows didn't complain or puke? It seems hard to keep 98SE from puking these days, at least for me. Good report there. Someday when I get a PCI-E super new board I'll know what to try. I'm going to be experimenting with Linux for the first time. Eyes are tired from all the reading I've been doing. SUSE Linux looks good. I just bought BootIT NG so I'll have more control over things, especially if I wind up buying Windows Vista. I'm planning 98SE, XP, Linux on one hard drive with a second one waiting empty until I can afford Vista. So I'll be trying 98SE again on this computer as it's going in first. It's running fine in VMWare so I'll cross my fingers about how it'll do on the real hard drive. It's croaked on me with strange IOS errors many times in the last year or so. Haven't got a clue what causes it. Even happened on an Intel SE440BX, so it's not the old "more than 2100 MHz" processor speed problem. At this point I'd just do Linux but I'd miss my games too much. I know many that I have wouldn't work even with Crossover. So I need both XP and 98SE even if I'm experimenting with Linux.

Ah! Okay, I see your point completely. I've just been so used to Windows installers and had read MDGx's post where he pushed the newer versions are better message. Plus, when I had experimented with both using the same version file installed from Command Prompt Only and the exe version that installs that one version regardless of the one it replaces I had no ill effects either way. Both worked fine, but the exe version did not change the buttons in the Close Program box so I liked that better. Since I had no ill effects with the installer version I had no idea it might have a different, disabling effect on someone else's system. Kind of like Microsoft releasing a Critical Update in Windows Update and then seeing if it messed up peoples systems, and only then fixing and rereleasing it. I suppose even they cannot test for every possible system configuration and so that's why that kind of stuff happens. I am happy the problem was fixed up and sorry about the effect the exe version had! Yes it is very easy to just install the correct, matching version number using MS-DOS. I just hadn't realized that having the same version was critical. Haven't used it in a while as I haven't installed 98SE to a partition over 120GB lately. I even toggled off the installation of the exe version in the auto-patcher as I didn't see the need to install a fix for a problem that wouldn't occur on a smaller partition.

What I meant was that you need to use the Via AGP driver from the Windows 95 folder on Windows 98, 98SE, Me. I've never used Windows 95 so that's not what I was talking about. 98, 98SE, and Windows Me must use the vxd via AGP driver, otherwise AGP read and writes are turned off, AGP Direct X texture acceleration is not available, and PCI bus speeds are used instead. I'm thinking this was done on purpose to increase compatibility with boards that have poorly designed AGP busses. In my experience installing the Via AGP on 98, 98SE, Me using the Via 4-in-1 or Hyperion setup never works as it installs that sys driver from the 98SE Via AGP folder which turns off AGP bus use in 9x. So I always manually install the AGP driver from Device Manager (update the Microsoft PCI to PCI thing), directing it to my extracted AGP folder and the Windows 95 folder within it. I choose not to restart when Windows asks. Then I install the Via 4-in-1's, unchecking the AGP checkbox so the installer ignores what is already installed on the system. Then after restarting Windows installs the rest of the updated devices. When asked where a file is I enter C:\Windows\System as that is where the Via setup installed all the needed files (Windows doesn't seem to know that, but everything needed has been put there by Via). Then I can proceed to install Direct X and my videocard drivers and they will be setup with full AGP bus acceleration (8X in my case). What is new from this thread is that on newer PCI-E boards we can at least get the cards to work with the normal Via 4-in-1, Hyperion setup that installs the AGP sys driver file (from the normal Windows 98SE folder). We probably will be only using the PCI bus speeds but at least it will run. I imagine that if we tried installing the vxd Windows 95 driver it would not work on PCI-E cards, so we will be stuck with the, normally installed by the Hyperion, sys AGP driver and the PCI bus. Keep in mind that Direct X 3D acceleration will still work at PCI bus speeds, only we don't get AGP texture acceleration and the AGP reads and writes are turned off. Most games can't tell the difference, but of course it is a slower speed. All Direct X tests work either with the Sys or Vxd driver, Direct 3D, etc. Only the AGP textures are not available and SmartGart will not run the AGP Reads or Writes using the Sys driver. So we run at AGP Speed 0X, instead of the AGP Speed 8X. But the card will still play games fine using the PCI bus reads and writes. I imagine a tad slower though! I hope this clarifies what I meant.

Funny thing is that if I do not right click and increase the Initial Environment in the Memory tab's dropdown box, the next window DOES error out and auto-patcher will not proceed. So it's not just a problem with the first window. Once I've changed all the batch files and shortcuts in the auto-patcher folder's root, there are no more errors. I don't get it. Sorry about the misspelling. I was worried that sometimes I capitalize it! I had no idea about messing up the spelling as well. By the way, I'm currently exploring the world of OpenSUSE Linux 10.2. I happened to be kvetching on another forum about how expensive the new Windows Vista was. One guy replied, "You need Linux." The next guy said, "Here we go!" Heh, heh. Well everything I can think of has been downloaded and burned. Been reading like crazy. Thank the maker it's mostly GUI these days. Saw those early FAQ's that are still on the main Linux.org site. Sheesh, that command line stuff seems a bit much. I grew up with Windows 98 so even my MS-DOS command knowledge is meek at best. Got no idea how exactly I'm going to set it up as far as partitions, etc. but I'm gonna do something with it. I'll let you know if my computer (or my brain) blows up. I think I'll stick 98SE on here first just so I can have some normal access to all the old stuff I have. Gosh I hope I don't get that "Error loading device IOS, real mode memory allocation failed" that seems to haunt me whenever I install a real 98SE system instead of VMWare. Guess I won't say much though. Completely off topic.

http://www.mdgx.com/files/48BITLBA.EXE That's the direct download link from the mdgx.com page. I don't know if it will work from here but it's on his 98SE fixes page there, and this thread here is the one he links to for further info. The auto-patcher includes that and installs it by default. I toggled it off as I wasn't using a large hard drive and would rather not change the file if not necessary. But that's the one I would use only because of my personal preference to not change the buttons in the Close Program box to the older, Windows 3.1 style where the buttons don't pop out at you. I don't know for sure, but I think that is the only difference between the exe and LLXX's version. Well. besides needing to install LLXX's from the command prompt only or MS-DOS Mode. The exe just runs by double clicking it in Windows. Hmm, interesting that the Via driver allows 48 Bit LBA. I think your's were the posts I read telling that it does this, but then I read others and a Via Readme as well that stated otherwise. Someone asked me to find the Via readme once. Heh. It's somewhere. I read it. No, I'm not looking for it! At this point I don't mind who's correct as I don't use a 686b southbridge board anymore. I wouldn't myself install it into any of my newer boards. Never used Windows 2000 either!

Offler, Just to relate my experience with that sys AGP Via driver on 9x, using an AGP card I could only get PCI Bus speeds. It would turn off AGP acceleration completely and AGP texturing support was removed. I needed to manally install the AGP from Via's AGP folder, directing Device Manager to the Windows 95 folder within that. That used the via AGP vxd gart driver which reenabled my 8X AGP and AGP texture acceleration. Perhaps since this is PCI-E we're discussing now, that PCI only sys driver is just what the doctor ordered to let PCI-E graphics cards work on 9x. Good deal! Don't have one myself but it's nice to know that when I get a new PCI-E motherboard and videocard sometime in the future that I might be able to run 98SE on that. I guess I better stick to Via, eh? I've mostly used Via boards anyway.

soperific, That's the look I was getting a while back when using auto-patcher and letting it install 98SE2ME and 98MP10 modules. Not right after the auto-patcher but rather following the installs of 98SE2ME and 98MP10 done afterwards. The weird mix of XP icons on that full screen type Internet Explorer look on all Explorer windows. That, and the WMP not opening and that error message of the conflicting versions. The WMP stuff was fixed by MDGx by a newer version of the updates but I never did figure out (or seemingly get anyone to understand what I meant) why the explorer windows looked like your picture! Last time I ran it I untoggled your 98SE2ME and 98MP10 modules and did not experience that weirdness. Now you say it was caused by SHELL98? Hmm, was that taken out of 1.7? Or, toggled off by default? So SHELL98 is the culprit? Funny but I kind of remember that I toggled that on when I last ran auto-patcher 1.7 and I didn't get the weird explorer windows. Maybe it wasn't SHELL98 that I toggled though. I think it was some patch for large file movement, deleting though. I hope that now that you got the same error that I did and understand what I was talking about we can permanently figure out how to stop it from happening (what to NOT install)! DeadDude, I don't think Soperific would need your image, but perhaps he would (can't speak for him) enjoy examining that weird Microsoft hybrid 98 cd you have there just for fun. As far as fixing a bug, it's not an auto-patcher bug as all auto-patcher is doing is installing all these updates. Aside from still having Environment size errors without a bit of tinkering it appears to do its job of installing anything it is set to install perfectly. Your errors seem to be specific to that program you're using and that strange 98 cd. Soperific, Yeah, what about those Environment space warnings? I need to right click and change the memory tab Initial Environment to the (4096?, I forget) largest in the drop down in the batch files I see there. But then I still get the warning in the first screen about it but when I choose to run it anyway it works with no environment errors any of the further screens. That IS something that is a bit buggy about auto-patcher and it will not run without my right click fixing.

Yeah, but see that 4.90.3000A? That's what MDGx has fixed in the full version of 98SE2ME. It stays at 4.10.2222, or whatever it's supposed to be exactly. I forget and can't check at the moment since I'm in XP. I still think that's cosmetic, as the command prompt winver would I assume be the version reported to updates or install programs that check the Windows version. At any rate, I turn those modules off in auto-patcher and install the full versions as I have a Windows Me cd for that. The version reported after using the auto-patcher is then not changed from before running it. I think this fellow just needs to get his hands on normal 98SE cd's. Right off the bat his version will throw off updates and programs, same as the Microsoft Security Updates Cd did. I see this as a Microsoft mess up. I think the computers that came pre-manufatured with this version of Windows installed aren't all that updatable due to that crappy hybrid Windows installed. And installing this included cd of that particular OEM Windows results in the same problems. Hey! Maybe this fellow is the only one who got these computers that is still trying to run 98 on them. Or, at least, update them. Wow. A special moment. Calls for a beer.

Anyone who has not purposely uninstalled Microsoft JavaVM already has the older version installed. No need to install an older version first. In fact, if one just goes to Windows Update it will still offer the last version because the older one is a security risk. There are older programs that will not run if the Microsoft version is not on the system. There is no reason to uninstall it. Once the JavaVM from Sun is installed it will automatically set itself as the default. So all he's got to do is install the Microsoft 3810 update. The auto-patcher includes it, but like I said he could just go to Windows Update and get it. Or download it from a link on the mdgx.com website and install it himself. Whatever.

No, MDGx changed that from old versions. The GUI from My Computer's properties used to report the Windows Me version in old 98SE2ME versions but it was and always will be 98SE. The newer 98SE2ME versions, for quite some time now, show 98SE version numbers. It was just the GUI anyway. And yes, the auto-patcher does include a small subset of 98SE2ME, but only the Explorer.exe and updated registry (user32.dll and user.exe I think) files because bugs were fixed in the Windows Me versions. If you are not going to seperately install 98SE2ME and 98MP10 then I recommend letting the auto-patcher install what it includes of them. If you intend to seperately install 98SE2ME and 98MP10 then I recommend toggling those off in auto-patcher so the backup process is not interferred with and the files are updated properly when you do run those seperately (as I do. I'd rather have the full versions). But that didn't cause your problem. I think you have official Microsoft cd's, but rare ones that mess with the version just like that old Security Updates cd did. Yeech! So you've got something extremely unusual there. I think retail or OEM 98SE cd's are occasionally available on ebay. Or you probably have a friend or associate who no longer runs 98SE and would give, sell you their cd and license. That would be the safest bet as who knows at this point what folks on ebay are selling. I wouldn't want to run the cd you have as it obviously causes conflicts with updates and programs just like the Security Updates cd used to. It's up to you but it might not be possible to get everything updated and working with that cd.

Heh, all hologram eh? Newer cd's are like that, XP and such. Never saw a 98 one like that, but who knows? The only OEM 98 I have is a 98 First Edition one which looks the same as I described my Second Edition cd's. My Second Edition cd's are all retail box ones. Sounds like Microsoft made it, but you're saying it doesn't say 4.10.1998 once it's installed? Weird. Maybe they made some for OEM's that were just prior to 98SE being finished but that had the First Edition Service Pack as part of it. Still, if it's official no program should have a problem running as long as it supports 98 First Edition. That's still what it is, and always will be unless you have a 98SE cd to upgrade it with once the original one is installed. Or. Cough, Cough, a Windows Me cd. So, what oscardog said. Some hotfix's have been applied and are already on that disk. Any 98 First Edition updates should work, but not Second Edition exclusive ones. Don't know what to do about your malfunctioning program. Do other programs work fine?

That Via IDE driver does NOT update 9x to support 48 bit LBA, regardless of what some of the guru's on the ViaArena forums preach. It is only useful on Windows 2000 systems using a Via 686B Southbridge chipset. Really. And it also messes up cd drive access. About the only benefit it really had was fixing zip drive problems on those 686B chipsets. Yeah, it is hard to remove but you may be successful if you uninstall it AND remove the IDE controller from device manager as stated above. If the proper Microsoft driver is then installed after Windows restarts, then you can proceed to install the Via 4-in-1. The solution to 48bit LBA is the ESDI_506.PDR patch either from LLXX or the auto installer that MDGx links to. I'd use the auto-installer. I like the way that version leaves the GUI buttons in the Close Program box alone. Not sure what else is different.

Oy Vey! Yes, that has happened to me with the Service Pack at times. It was usually caused by having conflicting versions of MDAC. I've found that if I want to install older Office programs (through Office 2000), I need to install Office (or Works if that's what you use) before using the Service Pack. However if I want to use OfficeXP (or Works 8) I need to install the Service Pack before doing so. Unfortunately I was never able to recover my system once receiving those boot up errors caused by the mis-match. Uninstalling the Service Pack does not fully undo the system file changes made by some of the official Microsoft files it installs. There is nothing unofficial in the pack that causes the error, rather official Microsoft files that install and replace files regardless of what is already on the system. They are supposed to check for version when replacing existing stuff but many times that gets complicated. You could mess up doing this stuff manually as easily as the updates included in the Service Pack do, so it really isn't the fault of the Service Pack but rather Microsoft's design of their updates. In your case, I would format. Until a new release of the Unofficial Service Pack comes, for now I would stick with the auto-patcher which is up to date. Either that, or just keep the install order regarding Office/Works programs that I mentioned above. If you're careful about that, there will be no problem using the Unofficial Service Pack. But I still recommend the newer auto-patcher instead.

soperific, In addition to the updates I listed a few posts above that Windows Update erroneously reported I needed, there were a few in the Recommended Catagory as well. Didn't write them down, but the Internet Explorer Start Wave fix was one of them. The crappy Update Notification (sure don't want that thing) and the Euro Fonts were there too. I didn't install anything as I figure that between my OfficeXP install, the auto-patcher, 98SE2ME, and 98MP10, I've got what 98SE needs to be updated. Just wanted to let you know since I forgot to mention them. It may not be wise to start messing with entering items manually, as you suggested you might try above. I'd hate to have manual entries screw up something, as is certainly possible with Microsoft software! Why not just include in your documentation somewhere to ignore old updates that are reported by Windows Update to be needed?

Don't worry. It's not off topic since you originally were wondering about what updates are in the auto-patcher and whether this contributed to your version difficulties with a program you use. Are you sure your Windows 98SE cd's are authentic Microsoft OEM or Retail cd's? They would have a bluish/grey color to them and the Microsoft flag across the whole thing just in the cd's clear silver color. If retail they would be 0499 Part No. X04-14310 (at least one of mine I'm looking at has that number). There would be a hologram around the center cd hole with stuff like Valid and Microsoft and a few flags in the hologram. If you start from Gold (First Edition) then use the $20 Second Edition Updates cd then it would be 0499 Part No. X04-12707. Same look and hologram around the center. Now there was also a Windows 98 Service Pack 1 cd. 0499 Part No. X04-64496. That installs needed updates from Second Edition into a Windows 98 Gold installation but does NOT make the system Windows 98 Second Edition. If you or your OEM somehow included that in your OEM cd then it is possible that you have 98 First Edition with the Service Pack 1 pre-installed. It is possible (not sure though) that this results in that weirdly numbered version you have. However, that does not make it 2nd Edition so you cannot use the auto-patcher. For systems like that you could use the Unofficial 98 First Edition Service Pack that is in another forum thread. You would need many updates besides that pack to upgrade whatever software is not included in that Unofficial Service Pack. Anything with 1999 in the version is NOT 98 Second Edition.