Jump to content

Eck

Member
  • Posts

    649
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by Eck

  1. Yes I've kept tabs on that thread regarding the PCI Express widescreen supporting Nvidia drivers. That should help this fellow out since the official 81.98 didn't support the latest models and PCIx. Vista's fine, and that's the one that'll be given attention to by hardware and software developers now. With his RAM and processor it'll fly. I run it with my specs and it's still fine. Now if he has a copy of XP SP2 already there's no big need for going for Vista immediately, but if he has neither I would skip over XP and just buy Vista. But that's besides what he'd really like to do. If he gets his games going with 98SE running that machine he's gonna beat everyone on the internet! 98SE really stays out of the way so his gaming performance should be incredible. I remember my friend's old Porshe. He would put it into drive and we'd zoom away! Give it gas and we'd be waving to folks flying by in 747's.
  2. Yeah, I'm the guy who gets the joke a half hour later. It's just that I read your specs with a bit more interest the second time around. Really, most of those questions would be answered just by your browsing around the forum. Do your research and you just might succeed. You'll likely need to do the memory optimizations immediately just to get the system to boot with all that memory. If you're lucky. 98SE will at least start to the desktop after the install so you can do it in the GUI using sysedit. If not you'll need to edit from the command prompt only using the dos edit program in the Windows\Command folder. It's in the path so you'll likely just need to type edit system.ini to open it. ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 DMABufferSize=64 MinSPs=16 MaxPhysPage=40000 Those lines go at the end of the 386Enh section MaxFileCache=393216 That line goes in the vcache section So the MaxPhysPage=40000 limits 98SE memory use to 1 Gigabyte so it won't throw up. And the MaxFileCache=393216 fixes more crash problems with over 512MB of memory installed. The other stuff stops Windows from swapping everything to the hard drive, making it use the memory instead, and increases stability by leaving more room for other stuff than the 98 default settings allow. Then you reboot (unless you did all that in the GUI, in which case you do this before rebooting) and set the System Properties advanced page, changing from Desktop Computer to Network Server (even if you only have a desktop computer). I would then get your motherboard chipset drivers installed and restart again. I wouldn't bother with the rest of your drivers until after running the Auto-Patcher. In fact you're better off if you disable your onboard sound or remove the soundcard, disable the ethernet in the bios, and keep all USB stuff disconnected until you're all updated. Just have your monitor, keyboard, and mouse hooked up and nothing else when installing Windows. Then proceed as above. Then install the rest of your hardware drivers, and then 98SE2ME (if you have a Windows Me cd) and 98MP10. These days with XP, Vista, or Linux I have everything installed and turned on that I'll want to use but that stuff can really confuse and wreak havoc on a 98SE installation as it doesn't have native drivers for any of it, nor the motherboard chipset drivers to deal with properly even setting up unknown devices (or known devices, until you install the chipset drivers and do the Auto-Patcher). The Auto-Patcher will take care of Internet Explorer, WMP, Direct X, and about a million other things needed. Just go through each section of it and toggle on or off what you want or don't want and then watch in amazement as it installs stuff, restarts the computer, installs more stuff, restarts your computer, many times over before it's done. Read, read, read all over these forums and use the Search to find particular things. You should do all that before starting your thread so you have a good idea about how most of this stuff works. Utilize the mdgx.com website to learn more. Don't worry about downloading much as most of what is needed is in the Auto-Patcher. However, there are many tutorials and there is much information that'll help you. Have fun! (You'd better think of this as fun, as troubles and stumbling blocks are bound to occur.) You've got XP? Why do I have the feeling that's what you'll end up with? That board is fully Vista ready too. Funny enough, it's probably too new for some of the current Linux distro's. But some of the latest released ones with newer Kernels could likely deal with it.
  3. OMG! That's some nice system! From what I understand, even if you're successful in getting Windows 98SE to run on that you'll only use one of your processor core's. And Direct X 10 isn't going to happen either. You'll be lucky to get drivers that'll run a PCIx videocard. And that huge amount of memory might cause problems even with all work arounds applied. So, I don't think so. But good luck trying. Yes, you'll need an anti-virus scanner installed and running. A software firewall too, unless you use a router as a firewall. You can be attacked successfully just by being connected to the internet without any browser being open. Less likely on 98SE since most attacks these days are designed to take advantage of the way NT operating systems process things, but still a possibility. Kapersky is a known excellent virus scanner, so no problem there. I've usually used McAfee but I'm a glutton for punishment I guess! Don't know whether Kapersky still updates for 98 but check it out to be sure. If not, Avast or AVG are fine choices that are still 98 compatible. Free, too! If you like Windows you'll have far less difficulties if you just bite the wallet and get Vista, or at least XP Pro SP2, and run your 98 in either VMWare or VirtualPC (VMWare being the better choice, but not free like VirtualPC is). Sorry, but that's simply a truth and in no way diminishes my love for Windows 98SE. Yes, the Auto-Patcher is a great way to make sure you're giving 98SE what it needs to be fully up to date. Some of the other projects around here are attempting to go further towards your goal of getting the latest do dads and programs, looks, etc, running on Windows 98SE. Those are used after first getting 98SE updated using the Auto-Patcher. 98SE2ME (if you have a Windows Me cd) and 98MP10 are also extremely helpful and I always used those as well (after the Auto-Patcher did it magic first). It's not going to be easy on that hardware. Nothing to stop you from trying though. Keep us all posted on your experience.
  4. However the problem is described it happens every so often when attempting to delete files or folders whether they are user folders and files or protected folders or files. Some of what is being deleted vanishes from view properly, then what remains refuses to go away. It has been deleted but still appears. After a restart of the computer they still remain but a simple delete finally gets rid of them. There is no way that this is a "feature." It is something that should be fixed so that it never happens, as it never happens on Windows 9x or Windows XP, in my experience. On XP if there's a lock on something then a message comes up that the file or folder could not be deleted, and it is not deleted. In Vista if this problem occurs the file or folder is deleted since there is no lock on it, but for some reason still remains viewable in Explorer. Since it has been deleted and is no longer really there, no actions can be taken upon the file or folder. There isn't anything there, but the pictures remain! If we reboot, we need to delete it and it then disappears. That's not a bug? Heh, then I guess the old 98 Windows Explorer problem once Internet Explorer 6 SP 1 is installed that makes copying files freeze things so that we need to end the Explorer process and restart it again (or wait like 10 minutes) or simply opening the My Documents folder freezing things the same way aren't bugs either. They're "features!" And never fixed by Microsoft, either. They just made like if you want Explorer to work properly with our new insecurity features you need to purchase our new insecure version of Windows. Maybe they'll leave this problem unfixed until they release their next version of Windows as well. This is a "feature" of Vista! With community based operating systems and software these kinds of problems would be fixed either with a patch or with the next version (and that wouldn't be 6 years away) of the package. It's a wonder I spent all these years thinking that since Windows was the most widely used it must be the best and really the only real choice. Gosh, I've learned how wrong I was with just a couple of months of trying out some of the competition. To think I was afraid to even try something different all these years and now find that nearly every other choice is superior to what Microsoft publishes. They are simply marketing, business, and legal genius's, not good software designers. Or rather, put what their software designers suggest at a lower priority than what their other concerns are. I don't mean to diminish what's good about Windows. Just let's say that I wish the company's priorities leaned more towards quality rather than quantity. All that said, and the many things unsaid, I do enjoy what does work properly in Vista. I prefer it over the previous Windows versions. I just believe that if something so basic as deleting files isn't working properly it should be fixed as soon as possible, not months or years later or in a non-mainstream update that a user needs to search for or contact support for. If you put in and encourage users to use an automatic update system then something as basic as file management should be automatically patched without needing to wait for the next Service Pack or a new release of the operating system. I understand that some hot fixes shouldn't be released to the masses until tested thoroughly but I do believe that many that are kept in the hot fix status awaiting inclusion in a future Service Pack aren't dangerous fixes and should be pushed if they would fix basic flaws such as we are discussing here. When a user encounters a problem like this one, it just makes it seem like Microsoft released a buggy product. Deleting a folder shouldn't be a problem. That's too basic a function to remain unfixed.
  5. Yes, but I think this problem is a bit different. These are not locked folders and files. I'd doubt that Vista would let you take ownership of a file of folder that has been deleted and it thinks does not exist. The problem is that it still appears in Windows Explorer, and will still be there after restart except the restart fixes things so you can actually fully delete it all. This happens even with user owned files and folders within folders like Documents, Music, etc. You delete files or a folder and they still appear. Just reboot and delete what's still there and they finally disappear. This is definitely a bug and not simply files or folders that are locked.
  6. Unlocker is cool. But for the occasional problem like you had, which I think is just one of the Vista bugs that haven't been fixed yet, simply deleting whatever can be deleted and then restarting the computer and deleting the rest of it worked for me. Upon reboot Vista let me delete these kinds of things completely.
  7. Heh, heh. I wasn't being sarcastic at all, but then did not mean for you to be the sole person to be a hero and all in keeping 98SE alive either. I was just wishing you success and hope that you will keep posting about your experience. Since 98 was my first Windows and got so comfortable running it I have a soft spot for it and do not abandon this forum even though I've found it nearly impossible to run, in my experience, with my current hardware and the more modern software that I install. No problem running it in VMWare. But see, since I'm mostly on Linux now and also have Vista dual-booting with it, I'm really pretty much satisfied. Plus, there's a new VMWare now. For reasons I'd rather not get into I would need to pay full price for this now fully Vista and newer Linux Kernel compatible versions. It's a tad too much to spend for just running 98SE for nostalgia purposes on it. I don't agree with you about running emulators. I use them for all my Nintendo stuff even though I own most of the games from the NES, SNES, and N64 period anyway. I just would rather play them on my computer and not split my cable TV signal with all the splitters. And there is almost no difference using Windows in a guest virtual machine from using it natively with the exception of 3D Direct X gaming. So I root for folks to get 98SE going and relate their experiences so we all can gain from it and use the posts as a possible model for using 98 with current stuff. But if problems result, I wouldn't dismiss emulators. The technology is fantastic. The best combo if you wind up having problems getting 98SE working with your new system might be one of the fantastic Linux distributions (OpenSuSE 10.2, Fedora 7, Ubuntu/Kubuntu, etc, choosing one that works with all your hardware and has the tools you want) and VMWare for your 98SE fix. That way you wouldn't need to splurge on a new Windows license if you didn't want to use XP or Vista. Assuming you have a valid license for Windows 98SE and are willing to devote the learning time (which I've found to be worthwhile), you'd have everything you need. I just like the updated Windows (Vista) so that's why I went the route that I did (Vista and Linux).
  8. But, mangostan, if you're installing Grub to the Linux partition, whether on the same hard drive or not, how will the Windows installed MBR, which is what continues to boot your pc no matter what is listed in Grub when it's not in the MBR, know how to boot anything but Windows? Something within the MBR must start the Grub that's installed on the Linux boot sector. I still don't understand exactly what you mean, perhaps? Some folks use Grloader, Grub4Dos, or EasyBCD which can write a chainloader into the Vista boot loader, to boot to the Grub on the Linux partition which you then can use it's menu to select things but in that case you basically want to just boot to Linux. Other (most) just let Grub install into the MBR by the distro default setup program and in most cases these days it will detect Windows and create the section in menu.lst to boot Windows and mount the Windows partition for access within Linux. I've found that I've had a hard time getting rid of Grub manually. Actually the only way I have was by wiping everything and installing Windows fresh. Vista's repair, using YaST to reinstall the original MBR, telling it to install into the Linux partition, running fdisk /mbr from a 98 Startup Disc, running Vista boot repair, running the command to reinstall NT6 from the Vista DVD have all failed to get rid of Grub. The XP cd wouldn't let me into the recovery console as neither my password nor no password would be accepted once Vista was on there. So that's annoying to me. I hate anything without an off switch. One time I left Linux on there and reinstalled Windows. Booting with the SuSE DVD and choosing to start the installed Linux, then trying to get Grub within YaST to reinstall itself also failed for me. I needed to totally wipe and reinstall Linux to get back Grub into the MBR. It's probably my not being familiar with command line stuff and trying to use the provided YaST substitutes. If they're not working properly (as they weren't at the time after those early versions of the Novell Kernel updates) then I'm sunk. Maybe some of that stuff would work now, since they've fixed up the latest Kernel updates they're pushing through Online Update. But the recommended non-Linux methods to get rid of Grub still concern me as they just didn't work for me. Sometimes you just want to get rid of Grub without needing to reinstall Windows. Grub is a really nice boot loader. But these are important issues the makers seem to think aren't so. Otherwise they wouldn't have made removing Grub such a mystery.
  9. Dog gonnit, that's one heck of an evil, psychotic look by Anakin, eh? Just one look at that and I now must watch all the movies again! Hey, maybe they were running VMWare full screen and you were clicking things in the XP guest? That would take some serious tweaking to get those controls to show up in Vista. It's just not built that way.
  10. At least with Via boards, the IDE mode for Sata (on the later boards that have that available) is not workable unless you're using XP or Vista (or Linux, he, he). Only the Sata mode with the Via Sata/Raid driver (even though you're not using Raid) works on 98SE. This can be installed once the operating system is setup and you've booted for the first time to the desktop. This always worked for me with Sata drives, except for the last time when I didn't install the Via Hyperion right away. I think that was my mistake and why once I did, the partition table was corrupted. Gotta install the driver immediately upon the first desktop. Sata with the driver is actually better than ATA since you'll be able to use the whole large drive. Just make sure you go into msconfig and deactivate running Scandisk on bad shutdowns. Scandisk's thorough mode and Disk Defragmenter as shipped with 98SE are not compatible with large drives. Gotta use substitutes. I used Norton Utilities 2002. I kind of think what you're building there is a bit too modern for problems with 98SE to not arise. As much as I love 98SE, a nice XP Pro SP2 would love that board. Just use Classic themes if you like the old look. Then run 98SE on either VMWare or Virtual PC and use Dosbox natively on XP for your MS-DOS game fix. More power to you if you manage to get all that hardware and drivers to work stable on 98SE. It could work, as some have done it on modern boards. And it sure would be zippy as 9x has less overhead than XP. But really, that kind of hardware has no problem being zippy with XP running it and today's drivers are about as optimized as they're going to get for XP. (Manufacturers are soon going to be concentrating on Vista, but that's okay for XP since whatever they can get out of XP with their hardware at this point, they're getting.) I've just had too many headaches the last few years when I've tried 98SE on even my AthlonXP 3200+ Socket A boards. It might just be the speedy processors, let alone the gig of Ram. Things work for a bit then fart out on me. Yet I can run XP, Vista, or OpenSuSE Linux 10.2 without a hitch. And I've used the patches and recommendations available for 98SE in I think an intelligent way. 9x is just designed for slower processors and less memory. Sometimes the tweaks and patches work and sometimes they don't. I've moved on to a Vista dual-boot with Linux. The Vista performance, for me, reminds me of when I started with XP, and dual-booted with 98SE. It was an Abit KT7A with an Athlon T-Bird 1.2 and 512MB SDRAM. XP was sluggish. Vista runs this now older board (the AthlonXP 3200+ and a gig of DDR RAM on the Epox Socket A) and hardware a bit sluggishly, with plenty of waiting for all the previous version imaging and indexing to finish their hard drive thrashing before I move on to my next task. But that's really just when installing stuff or making large changes. Vista has run nearly everything I've thrown at it so far. And I'm used to working with it already. I guess I don't mind the transition period, or working around new things. Keep us informed on how it goes. I'm rooting for you being able to keep 98SE alive.
  11. Yes, drivers for motherboards is a vital consideration. Read, read, read around here and you'll find some threads with specific motherboards that 98 can handle and those that don't. Make sure you can get your chipset drivers from your manufacturer that specifically support Windows 98SE. And since you're building yourself make sure you buy stuff like videocards, soundcards, Ethernet, etc that have 98SE drivers available. In nearly all of these cases that 98SE install cd will not provide you with acceptable performance with the old, old, old drivers it included. This was true even about 1999! That kind of thing you need to get from the manufacturers of your chosen hardware. Then, as far as 98SE itself, that's the kind of thing you can find projects with updates for here, including that Unofficial Auto-Patcher for Windows 98SE thread, the 98SE2ME thread (only helps if you have a Windows Me cd), and the 98MP10 thread. Then of course you should get software for your needs that is 98SE compatible.
  12. Can't do it, as far as I know. That top control panel is from XP and is similar to the controls available in all the previous 9x/Me/2000 control panels. The Vista audio stack is different. Yes, wouldn't it be nice if we could choose to use different midi synths? Some things are improved but much prior technology, like Direct Sound hardware 3D acceleration, is gone. We only get OpenAL in hardware now. Or, with an X-Fi card, software EAX through a Creative work-around called Alchemy. Soon Audigy 2 ZS users will be able to buy that seperately. Wild that you saw it on a Vista system. Sure it wasn't XP?
  13. Huh? Grub4Dos is not the Vista boot loader, but an alternative version of a boot loader that is Grub-like and is available for install by EasyBCD. Another program that uses it is the VistaLoader thing that we don't talk about (or use, unless for a temporary educational purpose experiment that you then get rid of when you're finished playing, along with that unlicenced version of Windows Vista). I played with it too, but then again I also purchased 2 Vista Ultimate's Retail so I think I'm entitled to play around on a temporary basis. Are you saying that simply typing the command for Grub to update will install Grub4Dos? I thought that was made by a separate 3rd party project not even forked from Grub. The Vista boot loader is specific to Microsoft Windows Vista, controlled by bcdedit or 3rd party utilities like EasyBCD or VistaBootPro, and does not bear any relation to Grub or Grub For Dos that I'm aware of. So updating Grub is nice, but if it's not in the MBR then Vista will still be alone there unless you specifically download and install something that installs Grub4Dos, like EasyBCD or, well, Grub4Dos itself. Grub4Dos is awesome though! It is a viable alternative boot loader for those that don't want to use the normal version of Grub. OpenSuSE Linux installs a working Vista/Linux dual-boot automatically during installation that uses Grub, but with a cooler looking Grub menu screen. That's what I've mostly been using. Had some wacky problems with older Novell Kernel updates that needed manual fixing but that's been fixed in the latest Kernel update by updated Perl versions and scripts that do it automatically again. I can see Grub4Dos as valid for distro's that need more manual fixing to setup the dual-boot, but as of now OpenSuSE does it fine with it's use of Grub. Don't even need to go in and fix it anymore.
  14. The easy way? All roads these days are mostly covered for you by using - http://www.msfn.org/board/Auto_Patcher_Win...ish_t80800.html A new version is being released shortly so don't go downloading that big thing yet. It should be up quite shortly. Don't sit and wait, but from reading the thread it looks like it's coming soon. But, other nice things are the Tihiy Revolution Pack, the Kernel Update Project, and smaller specific collections by Maximus-Decim. But, the Unofficial Auto-Patcher for Windows 98SE is kind of an all in one with the oldest to most recent patches, which also avoids installing out of date useless patches which have been replaced by newer unofficial ones that actually do what they're supposed to. Use instead of Windows Update when starting fresh or even on an old installation that you want to make sure has all the best patches installed. It won't reinstall stuff you already have. Quite nice. Besides that, you can ask for help, search for things that have been covered already, etc. Welcome aboard!
  15. Well okay, then. I had no idea that Windows Me's ScanDisk and Defrag could handle past 137GB. I had understood that the Windows Me versions were just an improved design that ran faster, but didn't know they were also able to handle past 137GB. Since I always use 98SE2ME I get those versions anyway.
  16. Well, the uninstallers wouldn't hurt. I found that they were needed to have a clean install of the latest versions on 98SE. And installing the latest versions early in the process I suppose wouldn't hurt either but in most cases would be kind of a waste of time as all the crap installed by older versions afterwards makes uninstalling everything part of Flash and Shockwave necessary. I guess for those who then run Auto-Patcher a second time would then get the new version installed again. Kind of a long process for just Flash and Shockwave though. For me, I'd likely only run Auto-Patcher once in any case. Once I've installed all those 98SE2ME and 98MP10 full versions I likely would be done with updates and would rather go on to actually using the system. When a new version comes out with new updates, that's different. And of course going to the Shockwave media check page, at least for Firefox users, just lists the versions currently active on your system. No auto-install is started unless you're using Internet Explorer with Active X allowed. I use that page to check both browsers following the Flash install in Internet Explorer, the downloaded Flash for Firefox install, and the Shockwave Installer Full setups. The links to the Internet Explorer Flash installer, the Firefox Flash download link, and the link to Shockwave Installer Full would be great to have in there for those who have trouble with the sometimes confusing Adobe website. The uninstallers put in the manual installs folder would be nice too. The installers get updated too frequently to include in Auto-Patcher in my opinion. It is a procedure. It's not, unfortunately, just go get the newest version and install it like most other plugins. On Vista, yeah, as the operating system doesn't come with the oldest version imaginable and most folks won't be installing programs with Shockwave 7 and 8 on Vista. Last time I did, none of the Shockwave files actually installed (thankfully), but the older Flash ocx files were added to the Flash folder. But since I don't think Vista allowed any registry change the only one used would be the latest one that has a Vista compatible setup. So there's no more hassle on Vista. But this is 98SE, which allows anything to make registry changes and install software. In a lot of cases this is nice but with Flash and Shockwave it makes a user need to go back and fix the mess.
  17. Oh. Okay. But regarding the Flash and Shockwave stuff, I still see it as just perhaps something that you could just suggest the url in one of the messages or readme files. We really don't want the link that installs Shockwave from the internet automatically as most of the programs we will install after the Auto-Patcher will install older versions over this anyway, and that automatic version is only the cut down Shockwave for Internet Explorer that not only doesn't install to Firefox, but also doesn't include all the parts of Shockwave Installer Full. And the Shockwave versions prior to 10 install the older Flash on top of everything as well. So perhaps a listed link to the latest Flash installer and a listed link to the Shockwave Installer Full download would be helpful, but not a link to automatically download and install the stuff. The inclusion in the manual install folder of another folder containing the latest Flash Uninstaller and the Shockwave Uninstaller for the older stuff like Shockwave 8 versions would be helpful to those who need (everyone) to use those before downloading and installing whatever the latest versions are. And perhaps a readme instructing to first use add/remove programs and uninstall every Macromedia, Flash, Shockwave program, reboot, use the stand alone uninstallers, reboot, use the Windows Components tab of add/remove to uncheck and uninstall Shockwave Flash and reboot, delete all the files and folders in C:\Windows\Macromed, reboot, and to then install the latest versions. That is how to get a fully working clean install of this stuff in 9x. And perhaps suggest that one should install their Flash/Shockwave software and games, encylopedia's, etc that install older versions before doing all this. Otherwise they'll just have to repeat this procedure. It really is that much of a mess on 9x only. XP requires less mucking about and Vista doesn't let much of the older stuff install so just installing the latest does the trick. Occasionally the uninstallers get stuck as well. Not a big problem as we wind up emptying the folder anyway before installing the latest when using 9x (not XP or Vista). It just nice when the uninstallers don't get stuck as then the registry entries are cleaned up nicely. Again, not a big problem as the latest versions put in anything they need.
  18. Well, Windows 9x/Me ScanDisk can be used if you never select the Thorough Scan option. The normal files/folders scan is okay. Disk Defragmenter is a definite no-no. Neither of these will see the sectors past that big hard drive limit as being healthy and will do damaging things to them if it encounters them. Any new commercial defragmenting program will not have any problems. Norton Utilities 2002 was the last stand alone version and has full 9x/Me compatibility in Norton Disk Doctor and Norton Speed Disk to be perfect substitutes for the built in Windows versions (which are by the way, Norton Disk Doctor and Norton Speed Disk without the Norton GUI and the additional features). It's just that the versions that come with Windows 9x/Me don't have that 48bit LBA compatibility. So if you can get your hands on that you could do your full thorough disk scans and defrags. Just do a custom installation and uncheck the Norton Unhide feature so you don't get that stupid Norton Recycle Bin that interferes with some stuff. You could also install it anyway and go into its options and delete all the files it protected and then turn it off and rename the Recycle Bin back to Recycle Bin, but it's better not to install it and have it mess with things in the first place. And you'll also want to make sure System Doctor is not set to run at Windows Startup. The only things you need are Disk Doctor and Speed Disk. Win Doctor is nice but it does do some funky things in its fixes to programs that install in a way that uses an inserted cd to run, or use files not activated in the registry until used (like some games and Microsoft Office, as well as DotNET stuff). Better off with no registry cleaner or a more modern one. So you install the whole thing except Norton Unhide Wizard but only use those 2 programs.
  19. The Hyperion 5.10's always worked fine for me so I guess something had just gone wrong with the setup that time. Perhaps since I used the Sata drive and had installed other things and rebooted a few times before doing the Hyperion install, it hadn't worked out. When I used the Sata drive in the past successfully, I had installed the Hyperions first thing. Guess I'll go back to doing that. I had thought that since the Windows 98 Resource Kit, the Microsoft Cd Sampler, and Plus! 98 (without McAfee, the Cd Player, Golf since I have the full version, or the Disk Addons) install some really old things that it would be better if I did those first but hey, guess I was wrong! The newer aspi driver (4.71a2) often times doesn't work properly even if it somehow gets installed properly. So that ForceASPI 1.7 with the 4.60 versions is really the best. Much better than what comes with 98SE and rarely causes any problems. And using ForceASPI to install it is best because that batch also installs the needed registry entries that none of the official Adaptec installers do. Having Flash and Shockwave installers is kind of a waste since often times folks install programs that install older versions. I've nearly always had to get all my programs installed, uninstall Flash and Shockwave using both the add/remove programs listings and the Adobe Flash and Shockwave uninstallers from their website, rebooted, go to Windows Components in add/remove and uncheck Shockwave Flash and reboot again, delete all the stuff in the C:\Windows\Macromed folder, reboot, and then install the latest versions from the Adobe website. I usually install Flash from the website, then install the downloaded Firefox version, and the downloaded Shockwave Installer Full which installs both to Internet Explorer and Firefox. This was my 98SE routine anyway. On XP I install newer versions of Microsoft stuff like Money, which need the latest Flash installed first. So for that I do install the latest, then after all my stuff is installed I then go through the uninstall, reinstall routine. On Vista it's easier because I don't install any of the older stuff that installs old versions. I just install the latest Flash, install my software (and Encarta installs version 10 of Shockwave) then just do the Firefox Flash and the Shockwave Installer Full so the very latest Shockwave is installed to both IE and Firefox. No uninstalling needed. Microsoft Digital Image Suite Ann Ed installs the older versions of Flash (6, 7, and 8) but in a way that they're just added nicely but don't mess up the newer one. So having it in the Auto-Patcher just gives us another version to uninstall in order to get all the crap cleaned up so just the latest version is installed clean. Funny, but I usually unchecked that Windows Networking Tool and the Windows Update Checker. I don't see how those are essential. More like convenient tools for people that want them. Seems like they should be optional to me. Oh! And yes, since I now have spent $490 for 2 copies of Vista I AM going to be using it! Sheesh. I might as well have bought a computer. Not really though. Buying retail means whatever computer I build in the future to replace these with will just need a call to Activation to switch one of these Vista's to it. So cost of operating system will be removed from the future expense, and I won't be stuck with crappy OEM proprietary hardware choices. I like building my own. But, 98 will be revisited within VMWare. Love my Star Trek "Captain's Chair!" Only 98 plays that, and a few other favorites.
  20. From what I've read, if the IAA is compatible with your system then it can be used (obviously). If you can use it, then it is substituted as the driver used just like what happens when using a Via board with the Via Sata/Raid driver and a Sata hard drive. So, since that ESDI pdr driver is not doing anything you can run your big hard drives as long as your bios supports 48 LBA. Just don't use Scan Disk and Defrag. You'll need 3rd party tools instead. And set msconfig not to run Scan Disk on a bad shutdown. And yes, if you use a PCI IDE Controller card then you install its own driver that also is used instead of the ESDI pdr driver. So then you can also use the large hard drives as long as your bios supports the 48 bit LBA.
  21. Yep, that's my other (and I had thought, only) big 98SE mess. I'm glad for the explanation that the Via driver install just zonked out in remaking vmm32. Kind of figured as much but seeing my luck and having Vista's DVD actually fix things up I'm not going to get started with 98SE again unless I get to adding it in VMWare to my setup. I am surprised that that one muck up could render my whole hard drive useless to anything but an operating system install disk. Even Partition Magic and fdisk /mbr couldn't deal with it. How Vista saw everything as being fine I'll never understand. I was aware of the Via places and procedures. This is a late (last?) model motherboard of the Socket A series so the 4.43 didn't work well with it. It couldn't install itself, in fact, always giving a setup error. The motherboard cd even had a later variety of 4-in-1's but the newer Hyperion set had always worked fine. I'll just do a Vista/Linux setup. What's on here now has to go because the Vista setup is, shall I say, just something I wanted to play with temporarily as an experiment. It did fix up my hard drive from whatever that vmm32 error did to it, which is nice. My unhooked PC has my actual Vista Retail Upgrade installed on it with a dual-boot Vista/SuSE Linux. It has an ATI card and a semi-defective USB hub that I use a Belkin 4 Port hub to work around. I wanted to use this nearly identical PC I built with the same model of Epox motherboard but with an NVidia Videocard. This, to see about highly vaunted NVidia superiority when used in Linux. Plus, no USB problem. I just ordered a second Vista from Amazon so I can be all legal and everything. In a couple of days it'll get here and I can wipe the hard drive and start fresh. (Eidenk will likely get a chuckle out of that.) I bought it at about the same price as the discount Microsoft gives for additional licenses, but I'll have another shiny new box and the 2 DVD's again (32 and 64 bit). Microsoft's web site wouldn't let me buy the license from whatever it is I've got installed here that I'm not saying, so I would have needed to hook up the other computer to get it to work. Luckily, Amazon had the full boxed up new thing for the same price as just the additional license. Now, if NVidia can only catch up to ATI in Vista driver stability I'll be happy. The latest NVidia WHQL's do crash and recover every so often at startup, and they also blue screened me once (so far). The ATI card never crashed itself or the system on me, even during the Vista Beta period. But since I intend to spend the majority of my time in Linux I think the NVidia setup is the way to go for me. So, thanks for the assistance and I will look forward to using the newest Auto-Patcher on a VMWare Guest setup at some point soon. Edit - Ah! I was replying to submix8c but saw you're post, briton, when I was done. In my prior IOS Error difficulties it had occurred on both large ATA drives and large SATA drives. That 48 Block driver update doesn't affect the installs on a SATA hard drive as that driver isn't being used. This new vmm error is on the SATA drive. Both of these drives are 250GB. But in case you're thinking it applies, that IOS Error I get all the time also occurs on a normal 120GB ATA drive! Oh! It also happened to me on 2 really old motherboards with tiny 20GB hard drives. Like I said, 9x and me (I, not Windows Me!) haven't gotten along for a long time now. From my experience, as long as I installed on the first primary partition and kept the size limited to up to 120GB, I had no problem whether using the ESDI pdr update or not. On Sata, of course it didn't matter and I substituted Norton Disk Doctor for Scan Disk and at one time even installed 98SE to the whole 250GB. The ESDI pdr driver isn't used so it didn't even matter that the patch hadn't been created yet. On ATA, yes it matters and I never even tried going past 120GB with one of those. Of course, those good 98SE times were before my difficulties of the last couple of years.
  22. I just wanted to let you know that for me, Windows 98SE lately has been the most impossible operating system to try to install and use on my computer! In my latest attempt on a clean hard drive I had Partition Magic make a 60GB partition and format it, and I installed 98SE. I made the normal additions to system.ini regarding VCACHE and 386Enhanced having the lines that make things work with a gig of RAM. Rebooted and all seemed well. I installed the Via Hyperions and rebooted to something like "System needs VMM32 and can't find it so put the darned thing in your path will you?" Okay, I figured that possibly the old HP Pavilion bug (this is a home built, not an HP) had hit me so I used Edit to add C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM to the path in autoexec.bat. That used to work during installs on some HP's when getting a similar startup error like that. It still couldn't find it. I tried typing in the whole path instead of using SET PATH=%PATH% followed by ; and the added ones. Still no go. No safe mode, no nothing, which was different as even those HP's boot into safe mode when that sort of error occurs. I noticed that ScanDisk was freezing when trying to run at bootup. Uh oh! So I ran it myself from the command prompt and it reported an error and I let it fix it. No good rebooting again. So I put in my Partition Magic floppy and was greeted with a description like "Bad Partition or MBR" instead of what it was. Actually PM offered to fix the error, but when I let it it reported that there were too many errors to fix. I tried deleting the partition and it did, but then only showed it as Bad again instead of free space. I tried fdisk /mbr from a floppy but that still didn't fix the problem. I'm now typing from Windows Vista, which installed perfectly right from the DVD onto this same hard drive. When installing, I had it remove the partition (which it showed as able to install on and no error about it) and create a new one, format it, then install on the whole drive. When Vista was up I had it schedule a complete CHKDSK on reboot. The drive had absolutely no errors on it and nothing to fix. After installing a zillion programs and all my drivers and stuff I defragged and all went fine. The latest Via Hyperions installed fine too. I used the latest version on Vista, but had used the prior version for 98SE as Via says there are problems with the newer one on anything but Vista. So I had used the right ones for both but 98SE really didn't like them! Weird eh? I had used those Via Hyperions on this board on 98SE and this hard drive many times in the past and never encountered anything like this. For some reason even Partition Magic couldn't work with the drive in the state it was in but Windows Vista treated it like a normal drive with absolutely no difficulties in working with it. I don't get it. 98SE hates me. In VMWare I can run it fine, but not on any motherboard I have natively. I'm cursed!
  23. I don't have widescreen so I guess these wouldn't add to what the 8198 gives me, however I have read that the last NVidia driver to contain certain (unknown) items in it that affect 9x compatibility with older games was the 6694 driver. I've downloaded that from NVidia. The readme for it says it's the first to add support for my 6600GT card (well, it says the 6000 series). It also was the first for Direct X 9.0c I think, with previous ones using Direct X 9.0b support. I don't think it includes the Pixal Shader 2.0 for newer games though. These, from what I've read, are needed if you want older games to function that will not run with the newer drivers. I'll be trying these shortly as I redo things from ATI to NVidia and include 98SE in my mix again. Perhaps you can look at the 6694's to see if the newer cards from the 7000 series can successfully work if adding them to the inf? The only reason I'm switching to my NVidia card is for the superior Linux support. Darned shame I need to because I loved my ATI x850 in 98SE and had the known problems using the NVidia 6600GT on 98SE in the past. But I was using later drivers. Maybe this old thing actually will make the card work properly on 98SE? I don't care about newer games on 98SE as I have all older games. A couple of exceptions, yeah, but I'll have Vista for that (which also works better with ATI at this point, sheesh).
  24. I may be mistaken but I think 98SE2ME versions that have that Windows Me version number include the latest fixes so there's no need to reinstall the ones with the older version numbers. Since I generally apply all the fixes before installing 98SE2ME I get the Me version installed. Then if a newer 891711 unofficial patch comes out I have let it replace those Me versions when it asked. But I believe I've read that those USER files are already patched when 98SE2ME installs them. If a new 891711 comes out I install the 98SE version as that is what we are running. Installing the version made especially for Windows Me is a definite no no! But that is not what 98SE2ME does. Um, I think. Edit - MDGx posted as I was typing. Oh! Then, do what he just said, as will I when it's time for me to install this stuff again. I'm just waiting now on a new Auto-Patcher to get released.
  25. I've also got CleanSweep 2001. I only used it for a brief period until I noticed that I kept needing to turn off its process constantly so it wouldn't interfere with programs. McAfee took the the competitor Cybermedia's technology over when they bought out that company. The old version before McAfee started messing with it too much worked wonderfully and part of it was even included in the Microsoft Plus98! pack. I wouldn't use the old one today, but remnants of it are still sold as McAfee QuickClean 2006. You can buy it from a McAfee download and it is compatible with 98 and XP. I've used it and liked it. They'll try to sell you a year of reinstall downloads but that's pointless since there likely won't be any more updates to it and they'll probably discontinue it soon as it won't run on Vista. Just burn the download to a cdr and you'll be able to reinstall it forever. A warning. You get McAfee Security Center along with it. That does nothing unless you have the rest of the VirusScan 10 or Firewall products but still runs in the system tray. Since I am a McAfee subscriber I needed all that since that's how VirusScan works, but if you use other products instead that could be an annoyance. It does recognize most other products though so it will let you know what they are and that you're protected. Like Windows Security Center you can tell it to shut up, that you use another Virus Scanning software and then it'll stop bothering you. On second thought, you probably don't want this if you don't use McAfee VirusScan. But at least they let you right click and exit out of the system tray icon. On the newer versions they insist on having that thing running even when you shut everything in it off. But QuickClean works great.
×
×
  • Create New...