alexanrs

Yes, I understand, it is just that such buffers are useless, since as soon Windows kicks in, its own cacheing will take over. Besides, even MS themselves advise against using high buffers instead of cacheing software (such as SmartDrv) since DOS 6 or so

Win98 will be perfectly happy with a 64-bit processor (x86-64), since these are backwards compatible. You just won't take advantage of it, but then again, nor will 2000, XP (32-bits) and Vista (32-bits). Btw, 64-bit Windows editions are poor sellers not only because of software incompatibilities (since excluding 16-bit software these are minor), but also because hardware problems. I myself had to buy a new webcam because my old one (which was perfectly fine) didn't have drivers for 64-bit Vista... and my BT878-based TV tuner was another epic battle...

BUFFERShigh=32,8?! Why that much for crying out loud! Use buffers = 10 so they'll fit in HMA. Also, if you want to improve HD performance before Win98 kicks in, you are better off with QCACHE or UIDE than high BUFFERS settings... Just remember to configure Windows to recognize QCACHE/UIDE as a safe driver in IOS.INI.

Also, Winamp 5.00-5.35 should work on Windows 98, and can rip CDs to MP3

¬¬ if he's trying to upgrade that dinossaur, I don't think he will be willing to cash THIS MUCH money for hardware... btw, getting a 350W PSU isn't a very good thing with that hardware...

I add "Contructor" to that list. Constructor is a game that might look a little like a scaled-down version of SimCity (at first you start with one empty block, you actually control the workers, you don't have to worry about electricity and water, but have to worry about materials instead), but then you get your first complaint... AND THE PEOPLE LIVING IN YOUR HOUSES CAN BE NAAAAAAASTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They ask for trees, pretty fences, complain about the neighbors music...And then you have to sabotage your enemies, steal properties, build a Mafia QG, send hippies to annoy your competitors.... FUN!

(Sorry, I'm double-posting a lot today oO)

Just a quick question: What creepy resolution are you using so 128x128 icons would be displayed at a reasonable size? Like, some freaky 29" LCD-monitor? By the way, you could probably "replace" the start menu. I think there are some free utilities arround that mimic Windows XP or Vista Start Menu on Windows 98. This would do the trick...

OH MY GOD! You're not serious, are you? Lets face it, although you can assemble a pretty decent computer for web-surfing, dowloading and for Office applications, running NEWER games is IMPOSSIBLE. You don't even have AGP support! Honestly, buy a new pc.... and well, that 5.1 soundcard is just useless, unless you wish to connect you system to a decent set of speakers.... it won't make your pc run any faster. You could probably assemble a not-so-bad pcfor gaming with the following specs: RAM: 2GB DDR2 CPU: Athlon 64 3200+ (the higher the better) for single core (if you want to use Win98) or a Pentium Dual Core 2.4 Ghz (WinXP/Vista, Core2 is better, but this should do the trick quite nicely, and no, Pentium D isn't the same thing as Pentium Dual Core); GPU: A GeForce 8600 GT (XP/VISTA only) should work quite well... if you don't push to insane resolutions with high AA settings. If you put everything on low you can probably get a 6800/7600 MOTHERBOARD: PCI-E by all means!!!! (unless you want Windows 98) The reason for getting a PCI-E capable MoBo, other than PCI-E being faster than AGP, is that the graphics card's prices differ... A PCI-E 6800 is cheaper than its AGP version. OS: Vista if you wish to use DX10 (AND got the GF8600), XP for DX9 gaming without problems, 98 if you like the challenge of getting the games to work

The best icon program to my experience (which is little) is Microangelo (google for it - it is shareware)

Weird, I'd try uninstalling and re-installing CleanSweep, MagicISO and WinRAR in that order to see which of them is causing this. It will probably "work", but to my expertise, running ANY game in a pc barely meeting their minimum requirements is a painfully slow experience.... May the hourglass be with you;

They look bad because they are just normal 48x48 icons scaled up. Get an icon authoring tool, create/copy 128x128 icons and apply them. They should work nicely (and, with Revolutions Pack or Uberskin, you might be able to use 32-bit alpha-blended icons as well)

Not-so-old C2D's use the cache more dynamically than that, one core can use more than half of the total cache depending on the load. Anyway, speed depends much on what is being done, if a P4 needs... lets say... 1000 clocks for a given set of instructions, and a Core2 requires 600, that won't change if you use Windows 98 instead of XP; Core2 is based on Core, which is based on Pentium M, a mobile processor. I think a Core2 is less power intensive than a NetBurst processor. Perhaps, but I still think NetBurst was worse simply because there was some decent competitor ready to take advantage of the circumstances. Actually, when P4 was launched, I remember reading in a magazine that, at Intel's presentation of the processor, or something like that, P4 was quite some disappointment even when compared to PIII... NetBurst was pure marketing, it allowed the clock to go higher than ever.... even nowadays we are beggining to see 3.0 Core2 become common, but any old PentiumD is 2.8GHz@stock at least.

Don't they both do that? AFAIK XP also balances the load. Actually, even some 1.8GHz Core2 Duo should beat the crap out of a 3GHz P4, even in sigle core mode... Pentium 4 (and its architecture) was Intel's most horrible mistake ever... Early P4s got beaten up by identically clocked P3s

Trust me, you'd be better off with a Core2 Duo. Even using only one core, a 2.4 or 2.6 GHz C2D woud probably wipe the floor with your Pentium.... unless you overclock it like a madman.

I think Revolutions Pack does it, if you are willing to try.

Machines with multiple processors have existed for quite some time, even NT 3.51 supports it, whereas Microsoft chose not to support it in Windows 9x-line because this used to be for servers only, and they found it too troublesome to work in something this big for no profit. I doubt it, AFAIK each VM gets one thread, and one thread stays on one core only. What good would it have been? Windows 9x wouldn't be able to use it anyway.

XD Normally, someone with such a computer that runs Win98 uses dualboot C'mon, VirtualPC isn't half the fun... making it work with newer hardware is actually entertaining, when possilble.

Never knew that that was integrated into IO.SYS. For those with Plug'n'play addon cards that do not want to allow the bios to handle it all by itself, is there a way to activate this in a non-modified IO.SYS or it was left there de-activated?

Isn't this only true for Windows ME? AFAIK, Windows 98 doesn't have a memory manager integrated into its kernel.

Yes it is. If someone can do everything they need/want in Windows 9x in less time, why bother with the advantages of the NT kernel? And this is coming from someone that uses Windows Vista as a main OS. How can you exploilt a bug in a service that doesn't even exist?

Oh god... here it goes again... Windows NT/XP/Vista is better when it comes to "local" security, which is good on shared computers. Windows 9x is more secure when it comes to networks, simply because it doesn't support even half of the networking crap people use to hack into a computer. Windows XP/Vista has better support for newer hardware... whereas Windows 9x has better support for older hardware. Windows NT/XP/Vista has a more robust kernel Windows 9x has a lighter one Windows XP/Vista runs all new software and Windows 9x runs all oldies, including TONS of DOS stuff In the end, it is all a matter of taste

No, it won't.

AFAIK, it is as simple as copying WLL.COM to Windows's folder, and HEX editing both IO.SYS and COMMAND.COM to replace every instance of WIN.COM with WLL.COM. Oh, btw, copying the logo to its appropriated place would be good also

wouldn't it be better to get a boot manager and hide the linux partition?