Dave-H

Thanks for the link to that thread! That looks very interesting. It appears that the unofficial driver does support the 7950 GT under Windows 98SE. It seems to support other higher cards too, but am I right in saying that the 7950 GT is actually the last with an AGP version?

Thanks. I already use the Catalyst 6.2 driver for Windows 98 with my Radeon 9200 based card. The nVidia cards which supposedly have Windows 98 drivers seem to be more up to date than the ATI/AMD equivalents. What I don't know yet is whether to go ahead with an nVidia card which supposedly has drivers for Windows 98. I don't want to buy it only to find that it actually hasn't got Windows 98 drivers! Can someone confirm or deny that drivers exist for the nVidia 7xxx series of cards? I'd obviously like to use the 7 series if possible as it's the most recent, but the 6xxx series would probably do.

Thanks. I found the 7950 GT available here - http://www.epartsandmore.com/product_info.php?products_id=542&cPath=97&m1track=custom&source=google1&osCsid=rka3mjp6muojq4pr5ff7t5i8e0 The seller says that it's compatible with Windows 98. Is that not so?

Well I'm now looking at nVidia cards. I quite like the look of the GeForce 7950 GT. Seems pretty powerful, is an 8x AGP card, and claims to have Windows 98 drivers available! Anyone any thoughts or experience with this? Thanks, Dave.

Just a quick note. That download link doesn't work. It should be http://japheth.de/Download/VWin32.zip It appears to be case sensitive, vwin32.zip won't work!

I'm not an expert on processor types, but I assume the Xeon is an x86 processor. Windows 98 (and DOS) runs on one fine, but only sees one of my two physical processors of course. XP Pro sees them both as four processors using hyperthreading, which was the predecessor to multi-core technology I believe. The reason I run it like I do is just a legacy one. I originally had just Windows 98SE (and 98FE and 95 before it) on my previous motherboard, then in 2000 I added Windows 2000 in a dual boot setup. The whole lot was ported to my present motherboard, (which despite never being tested with Windows 98 seemed to work fine with it) in 2003. Earlier this year the Windows 2000 installation was updated to XP Pro.

Thanks everyone, and sorry for not responding sooner, but I've been very busy the last few days! That's certainly given me a lot of food for thought. I'm not going to be changing my motherboard any time soon, as it is a dual processor server board with 3.2GHz Xeons and 4GB of a hard to get type of RAM, all which cost a lot of money! It's more than powerful enough for everything I want to do with it, it's just the graphics card (which is five years older, and was transplanted from my previous motherboard) which is now letting the system down. I will certainly investigate all the suggestions and get back. I do run my present card at 8xAGP BTW. Thanks all.

I'm hoping the Windows 98 experts here can give me some advice. As you can see from my signature, I have a dual boot system with XP and 98SE. My ATI Radeon 9200 based graphics card is getting pretty old now (bought in 1998) and I really need to replace it with a better one as it's having problems with recent games. XP is no problem of course, but I need the replacement to still work at least at a fairly basic level on Windows 98SE! I need it ideally to work at least with 32bit colour at 1024x768 resolution. I've looked at later ATI cards like the Radeon HD series, but it seems to be impossible to find any drivers for them which will work at all on Windows 98. I'd like to stick with ATI/AMD if possible, but it's not essential. It has to be an AGP card though, as my 2003 motherboard has no PCI-E slot, and not even any free normal PCI slots! Anyone any suggestions as to what I could use? Thanks, Dave.

I was aware that there are later versions of PC-cillin that support Windows 98, I assume PC-cillin 2005 is the last one that does. I haven't tried any later versions simply because I don't have licences for them! <snip> Thanks. Which Spyware Pattern do you use? I don't know what CPR, DCT and OPR mean. CPR means Controlled Pattern Release. OPR means Official Pattern Release. Not sure about DCT! CPRs are released in between OPRs for those who always want the very latest all the time. I only ever bother with the OPRs.

I was aware that there are later versions of PC-cillin that support Windows 98, I assume PC-cillin 2005 is the last one that does. I haven't tried any later versions simply because I don't have licences for them! I'm pretty sure that upgrades from 2002 to later versions were not free. Whether you can actually buy a licence now for any version I would doubt. 2002 seems to still work fine and I don't know what later versions might provide that would make attempting an upgrade worthwhile.

Yes, that's what I use, from here. There's been a bit of confusion over the pattern files recently, as about a month ago the Trend download page completely changed. It used to offer just the one file but now there are lots there! Also, the "Consumer OPR" files suddenly became at least double the size that they were before, with no explanation! They do work, but for the last couple of weeks I've tried using the "Malware OPR - Windows" file. This is more the size that it used to be, and still works. The zip files of the two versions actually appear to contain the same "lpt$vpn.xxx" file, just one is twice the size of the other! Very strange.

Ah, my apologies! I thought I had patched that file, but when I checked it's only on my XP installation. I think I was confusing it with inetcomm.dll! iecustom.dll seems to be some sort of setup file, related to IE8 in my case, although an IE6 version of it does seem to be included in the MS patch. It's almost certainly a file used just by the patch installation process as it isn't actually referenced in the inf file for the patch. Sorry for the confusion!

I did replace iecustom.dll on my Windows 98 system with the new version and it seemed to have no ill effects. I assume that MD's patch does that too.

Thanks, that's good to know. It must be OK in that case! It's here BTW.

I still use Trend PC-cillin 2002 (version 9.06) on my dual boot (98SE/XP) machine, and it still works fine. I haven't had automatic virus pattern updates for years, but I download and install the latest pattern files from Trend's site manually and they still install and work fine. I don't know how much longer for of course!

Slightly off-topic, but I thought that anyone subscribed to this thread might be interested to know that the files from the just issued KB978542 security patch for Outlook Express SP3 on Windows 2000 seem to work fine on Windows 98SE. Get it here - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=CDA75174-B535-4559-A52D-B5EC3A1DF349&displaylang=en

There is no install/uninstall routine as such. To use KDW, simply unzip the files to a folder of your choosing. Read the English readme files. They do suffer from some translation problems, but are reasonably clear. There are two basic program files to run, kdllinst.exe actually installs the dlls to the system32 folder, or the "ezinstall" process just installs them to the folder of the program you want to run. fcwin2k.exe is a compatibility forcer program to make msi and exe installation files compatible with Windows 2000. To uninstall, you just delete all these files.

I wondered about that too. They also released an equivalent patch for IE8, which I'm now using on XP. Thanks for the heads-up about the new patch for IE6 SP1 CharlesF. I don't get a notification now I'm not running Windows 2000 any more.

EZ install on KDW is a way of trying to get XP applications to work under Windows 2000 without actually replacing any system dlls in the system32 folder. You select the folder where the application's executable is, using the "refer" button. Select the dlls you want to use (e.g. kernel32.dll) and press the EZ install button. That transfers the modified dll to the application's folder, along with a wrapper dll. I did have great success with that while I was still using KDW (I've gone over to XP now ) It also creates .local files which go with any executables in the folder. I'm not sure what these do, but they are sometimes necesary for it to work.

Yes, you're probably right, although explorer.exe, the Windows Explorer, does have the same problem. I've just tried another experiment. If I run the IE .lnk shortcut from a command line using the "start" command, both using the "run" option on the start menu, or a command prompt, IE opens up fine with the History display correct. However, if I run exactly the same command line using my desktop "Run" program, IE still opens, but without the History displayed correctly! This is what's baffling me, why the same command line should produce different results when run in different ways.

No, it's not that. When I open the IE browser using my "Run" program, everything works fine for browsing. However, if I go to View>Explorer Bars>History the bar opens with the History tab shown, but there is nothing there except a dropdown called "Search History". If I run the browser using the normal shortcuts there is a list of weeks and days there which allows me to see the history contents. That's what I don't understand. Why should running the browser two different ways produce different results?!

I am an Administrator, so it's not that. Just tried another test. If I go the the IE folder and double click the iexplore.exe file, IE opens with no History displayed. If I create a shortcut to the exe in the same folder, double clicking that produces the same result. However, if I cut and paste the same shortcut to the desktop, and double click it, it still runs IE, but this time with the History displayed! Curiouser and curiouser........ I'm wondering if maybe it's a path problem.

Indeed it can be and is, but that's not the problem! It opens up fine, but there's nothing there except the "search" dropdown if I run IE using my desktop "Run" program. If I run IE using a shortcut, the weeks and days of the history are displayed. I was just asking why one method of running IE works, and the other doesn't when they at at least superficially identical.

Hi, this is my first post in this forum, having recently upgraded my old faithful Windows 2000 installation to XP SP3. I have upgraded everything I can to the latest versions, including IE, and am now using IE8. Everything seems to be fine apart from one strange problem. The History information is not showing, all it shows is a "Search History" dropdown, and nothing else. This is the case both in Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer. I did some research on this, and while it doesn't seem to be a unique problem, there seems to be only a few suggestions for fixes, none of which worked in my case when I tried them. I then by pure chance, found something very strange. I use a program called "Run" on my desktop, which allows me to run applications from one click on a button in a window. It's an ancient 16 bit program, that doesn't even recognise non 8.3 DOS file names, but it has always worked fine. It will only run executable files, not shortcuts. I use it to run IE and Windows Explorer among many other programs. I found by pure chance that if I run IE or Explorer using a "proper" shortcut, the History works, but not if I run it using the "Run" program! What the difference is I completely fail to see. The "target" command line and the "start in" path is exactly the same in the "Run" program as it is on the shortcut, so why would they produce different results? I am baffled! This did not happen with IE6 SP1, which is what I had to use with Windows 2000 of course. I did briefly have IE6 SP2 before I upgraded to IE8, but I'm afraid that I didn't notice whether this happened with that version or not. I've tried experimenting with running the IE shortcut from the "Run" program instead of running the exe directly, but haven't had much success. This isn't a big problem, more just an annoying niggle, but I really would like to know why it's happening if anyone has any ideas. Thanks, Dave.

IIRC just put the dll in the system32 folder, but you may need to then register it. What was the problem with ezinstall? It always worked fine for me.