Windows 98 installation blows up on Shuttle XPC...then completes?!

[SMCorp]

I've used Windows 98SE on most of my computers for 11 years but don't have any experience with the workarounds required to get 98SE installed on systems that won't work with it natively.

When the installation blows up, I just abort.

Before seeing this forum and similar pages in 2009, I didn't know it was possible to get around that. I paid more than $1K for an HP notebook 6 years ago, only to find that the XP Home it came with was all it would work with. The only option it had for installing software was the restore CDs, and they loaded it with the factory disk image plus all the Norton, etc. crapware/nagware. Even the XP Home OEM disk (that I think they were required by law to provide at the time) wouldn't work, because you'd have no drivers for the video, wireless G, USB, etc., etc., etc.. There was no driver CD and the online drivers were a tedious piecemeal business that still wouldn't get it 100%. It was a bummer, and since then I've stayed with sub-2ghz generic desktops and still get extremely fast performance and good security with 98SE.

The problem today is with a Shuttle XPC that just came in. It is a Shuttle XPC model SN21G5 which has a 2.21ghz AMD Athlon and 2gb of RAM, and I installed a 40gb IDE HD, not attempting to use the SATA controller here. The Windows 98 installation blows up and won't continue. When it gets to around the 20 minute point in the countdown, it goes to restart itself, gets to the Windows 98 sky/clouds screen, then freezes up.

After having read a lot of these nifty posts here, advising me that Windows 98 generally doesn't work with more than 1gb RAM or a CPU over 2ghz, I remembered it and removed one RAM stick to bring it back to 1gb RAM.

It did exactly the same thing. Or so I thought. I noticed that the lower 1cm of the Windows 98 sky/clouds screen had that little moving band, which appeared to be frozen, but it was actually moving to the right very, very slowly. I decided to let it hang there for a few hours just to see if it timed out or what, but when I came back, I found the installation had completed successfully! It just took about two hours instead of 25 minutes.

Then, I went back in and replaced the second 1gb of RAM, so that I could retry the Windows 98 installation with 2gb RAM on another 40gb IDE HD. Well, that was worse. It would get to the Windows protection error, and would keep powering off the computer. If I pulled that second RAM stick out, it would finish that bugged up installation without problems.

With either drive, the same thing happens. They will both start up and appear to run normally, but it takes about 20 minutes to start the computer! It hangs on that Windows 98 sky/clouds screen for approximately 18 minutes each time.

My questions for you guys:

1) What is the simplest hack to get around this, so it will start up in 1-2 minutes as it normally would?

2) Out of curiosity, what is it doing in that 18 minutes hanging on the Windows 98 sky/clouds screen?

Except for the 2000 version of Apple OSX which would seem to hang and freeze for several minutes on startup, I have no experience with computers that appear to crash but actually come out of it. It sort of defies logic that a computer could spend 20 minutes on a 20 second process.

Thanks for the help.

Edited August 12, 2010 by SMCorp

[Mijzelf]

Maybe you can get more information when you disable the bootlogo. Then you can see the BIOS and DOS messages while it boots. In order to do so you have to edit c:\msdos.sys (a textfile with flags hidden and system), and change Logo=1 to Logo=0.More on editing msdos.sys here.

[Guest wsxedcrfv]

The golden rules for installing Windows 9x/me on any system:

1) do your homework first. Identify the chipset on the motherboard and then seek out win9x/me drivers for it. If you can't find the drivers, you won't end up with a workable system. Read the sticky thread here about motherboards that have win-98 drivers.

2) video card. Unless it's an AGP-based motherboard, you likely won't get a functional system with a PCIe video card. If it is an AGP-based system, don't install a video card with more than 256mb of ram.

3) system ram and CPU: Win-98fe might (or does) have a problem with CPU speeds higher than 2.x ghz, but 98se doesn't, and ME probably doesn't either. And when you start the installation, don't have more than 512 mb of ram on the motherboard, and in fact don't plan on ever having more than 768 gb of ram on the system. Trying to run a win-98 system with 1 gb of ram will require tweaking and may leave the system with some constant level of operational instability. Very few people have ever had a workable win-98 system with more than 1 gb of ram.

4) Hard drive: If we're talking about a motherboard made in or after 2002, then you won't have a problem attaching a large hard drive to it (large = bigger than 128 gb). But if it's an IDE drive, then win-98 is not natively compatible with IDE drives larger than 128 gb. If the motherboard has a SATA interface (specifically - SATA-I) then you will most likely find win-98 drivers for it, and that will allow you to install win-98 on large SATA drives (500 gb at least). Any motherboard with a SATA-I interface will most likely also have win-9x/me drivers for the chipset. These will be motherboards made between 2003 and 2006. They will also likely have AGP video slots.

Edited August 12, 2010 by wsxedcrfv

[rloew]

The golden rules for installing Windows 9x/me on any system:

1) do your homework first. Identify the chipset on the motherboard and then seek out win9x/me drivers for it. If you can't find the drivers, you won't end up with a workable system. Read the sticky thread here about motherboards that have win-98 drivers.

2) video card. Unless it's an AGP-based motherboard, you likely won't get a functional system with a PCIe video card. If it is an AGP-based system, don't install a video card with more than 256mb of ram.

3) system ram and CPU: Win-98fe might (or does) have a problem with CPU speeds higher than 2.x ghz, but 98se doesn't, and ME probably doesn't either. And when you start the installation, don't have more than 512 mb of ram on the motherboard, and in fact don't plan on ever having more than 768 gb of ram on the system. Trying to run a win-98 system with 1 gb of ram will require tweaking and may leave the system with some constant level of operational instability. Very few people have ever had a workable win-98 system with more than 1 gb of ram.

4) Hard drive: If we're talking about a motherboard made in or after 2002, then you won't have a problem attaching a large hard drive to it (large = bigger than 128 gb). But if it's an IDE drive, then win-98 is not natively compatible with IDE drives larger than 128 gb. If the motherboard has a SATA interface (specifically - SATA-I) then you will most likely find win-98 drivers for it, and that will allow you to install win-98 on large SATA drives (500 gb at least). Any motherboard with a SATA-I interface will most likely also have win-9x/me drivers for the chipset. These will be motherboards made between 2003 and 2006. They will also likely have AGP video slots.

There are PCI-E Video Cards that work with Windows 9x such as the 7100 GS.

Some 512MB AGP Video Cards work with Windows 9x such as the 6200.

I've created Patches that allow Windows 9x to work with 4GiB of RAM. They are quite stable. Dencorso maintains a thread listing people who routinely use Windows 9x on Computers with more than 1GiB of RAM.

Many EPIA motherboards have a bug that can corrupt large Hard Drives. There may be others.

I have had problems with some of the SATA Drivers for Windows 9x. I have a Patch that works with nearly all SATA Controllers.

[dencorso]

For more (lots, in fact) info about installing Win 9x/ME with > 1 GiB RAM and/or > 137 GB HDD, please refer to the threads pointed to in my signature. You'll find there more info on RLoew's patches, too. HTH

[Guest wsxedcrfv]

There are PCI-E Video Cards that work with Windows 9x such as the 7100 GS.

Some 512MB AGP Video Cards work with Windows 9x such as the 6200.

I have yet to get any Nvidia 6200-based PCIe video card to work on an Asrock Dual VSTA motherboard (I've tried about 3 or 4 different boards) and one or two 6600-based cards.

And any PCIe board with "turbo-cache" will also not work (those boards can grab main system RAM and use it as video ram).

I've created Patches that allow Windows 9x to work with 4GiB of RAM. They are quite stable. Dencorso maintains a thread listing people who routinely use Windows 9x on Computers with more than 1GiB of RAM.

Unless the OP or others have access to those patches, my statement stands - that running a win-98 system with more than 768 mb of ram is a crap shoot. And my statements about the low odds of getting an arbitrary system to run win-98 with a PCIe video card is also correct.

Many EPIA motherboards have a bug that can corrupt large Hard Drives. There may be others.

That's not a problem specifically caused by Windows 98. We're talking about installing win-98 on "competent" hardware (or at least we should be). Any other starting point is a fruitless discussion.

I have had problems with some of the SATA Drivers for Windows 9x. I have a Patch that works with nearly all SATA Controllers.

Again, unless that patch and any other such patches are put into the public domain (like so many other fixes, updates, and patches for win-98 is) then we can't include those patches in a discussion about what win-98 is capable of or compatible with for the general or generic user who only has access to what is publicly available.

[rloew]

Unless the OP or others have access to those patches, my statement stands - that running a win-98 system with more than 768 mb of ram is a crap shoot.

Again, unless that patch and any other such patches are put into the public domain (like so many other fixes, updates, and patches for win-98 is) then we can't include those patches in a discussion about what win-98 is capable of or compatible with for the general or generic user who only has access to what is publicly available.

Publicly available is not the same as Public Domain. Windows 98 itself was once Publicly available but never was Public Domain.

These Patches are available to general or generic users. Only cheap users do not have access.

And my statements about the low odds of getting an arbitrary system to run win-98 with a PCIe video card is also correct.

I don't have a lot of PCI-E Motherboards to test, but the 7100 GS worked fine. A 7200 works but has the shutdown problem.

Edited August 13, 2010 by rloew

[dencorso]

Moreover, if I counted right, 22 out of 36 machines in the list are running with > 1 GiB without the help of RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch. For RAM > 1 GiB, up to 2 GiB this is relatively straightfoward. For > 2 GiB it gets trickier... RLoew's patch allows Win 9x/ME to actually access all that RAM, is really easy to apply, and makes the system generally stabler. But one can do without it, with lots of patience. I had my own machine running without that patch for a long time, with 1.5 GiB and my problems really began when I decided to go above 2 GiB. Video cards with 512 MiB are, apparently, only usable with RLoew's patch, AFAIK. But very few users investigated it, so I would not be surprised if someone found a way to use them without the RAM Limitation Patch. But for machines with a 256 MiB or less Video Card and not more than 2 GiB RAM, it's clearly optional. And to run with 1 GiB is exactly as easy as to run with 768 MiB RAM. In both cases one can just tweak SYSTEM.INI, or use Xeno86's FREE modded VCache.VxD, without bothering with SYSTEM.INI.

[Guest wsxedcrfv]

Would you not say that for someone installing Win-98 for the first time on some arbitrary hardware platform, that to minimize frustration and maximize success that they should not have more than 512 mb of installed ram, and the system should not have a PCIe video card?

And that assuming that person wants to delve into pages and pages of information about patches, ini file editing, seeking out modded video drivers, BUYING specific drivers from third-parties, etc, that they can do all that after they've gotten past the basic installation phase. ?

I can do quite a lot (open lots of apps) on my win-98 systems with 512 mb ram. I really can't believe that the risk-hassle/reward curve for going beyond 512 mb is attractive for the vast majority of win-98 systems in use today.

[dencorso]

Would you not say that for someone installing Win-98 for the first time on some arbitrary hardware platform, that to minimize frustration and maximize success that they should not have more than 512 mb of installed ram, and the system should not have a PCIe video card?

Yes. I think that's the most hassle-free way of doing it.

And that assuming that person wants to delve into pages and pages of information about patches, ini file editing, seeking out modded video drivers, BUYING specific drivers from third-parties, etc, that they can do all that after they've gotten past the basic installation phase?

Sure.

I can do quite a lot (open lots of apps) on my win-98 systems with 512 mb ram. I really can't believe that the risk-hassle/reward curve for going beyond 512 mb is attractive for the vast majority of win-98 systems in use today.

Of course. But you have to think there are two main types of users, nowadays: those installing to a dedicated 9x/ME machine (which should also favor a not too new motherboard and avoid multicore processors, because 9x/ME won't use more than one core, no matter what one does) and those who already have another main OS, usually of the NT-family, already installed and want to add 9x/ME as a second option for booting. It is for the latter that all these my considerations are more useful, since that user already probably has lots of RAM and a more powerful video card, to start with.

However, even in this latter case, I'd recommend reducing the ammount of RAM (and perhaps using an onboard, less powerful video adaptor, if present), just for installation purposes. After 9x/ME is installed and running, then the user can more confortably return the RAM to its full value and the video card to the better one (preferably doing it one move at a time), and configure/tweak/add patches. This avoids having to deal with all complications at once. This seems to me to be the case of the OP, so I went along this line of thought.

As you can see, we do mostly agree.

My main point was 512 MiB or less is easy. > 512 MiB is less easy but still relatively simple (768 MiB lies here), up to about 1088 MiB. Now, above that is way harder, but still feasible, and can lead to perfectly stable machines.

@SMCorp: Using just 1 GiB RAM, simply add Xeno86's modded VCache.VxD to the C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\VMM32 folder (extract it with 7-z from the installer and simply drop it there), and let's see how different the behaviour of your machine becomes.

[rloew]

Video cards with 512 MiB are, apparently, only usable with RLoew's patch, AFAIK. But very few users investigated it, so I would not be surprised if someone found a way to use them without the RAM Limitation Patch.

Although I added the /A Option to my RAM Limitation Patch to support 512 MiB Video Cards based on my experience with an ATI Radeon Card, it neither helps nor hinders operation of NVidia Cards with 512MiB. The issue I observed with the ATI Driver, does not occur with the NVidia Drivers discussed on this forum. My Patch may help with ATI cards but it won't help with the NVidia cards.

[LoneCrusader]

advising me that Windows 98 generally doesn't work with more than 1gb RAM or a CPU over 2ghz

Win-98fe might (or does) have a problem with CPU speeds higher than 2.x ghz

Although I do not believe that it is related to the OP's problem, it's worth noting that all of the problems that 9x has with processors > 2GHz have been solved. MS issued a fix for Win 98 FE {Here}, and I have created a program that fixes the issue for Win 95 {Here}.

I can also confirm that I was never able to install vanilla Windows 98 SE with more than 512MB of RAM onboard. It should be possible using RLoew's patch and the associated method however.

Edited August 14, 2010 by LoneCrusader

[Guest wsxedcrfv]

Although I do not believe that it is related to the OP's problem, it's worth noting that all of the problems that 9x has with processors > 2GHz have been solved.

My point was that unless you can find a way to create a slip-streamed win-98se install CD (with a good assortment of patched and updated files rolled into it) then the typical case will be that someone will have an original MS CD and it's not easy for most people to deal with installing an original win-95/98fe CD on a system with more than 512 mb ram or with a CPU > 2.2 mhz.

I can also confirm that I was never able to install vanilla Windows 98 SE with more than 512MB of RAM onboard. It should be possible using RLoew's patch and the associated method however.

It should also be possible by simply bringing the system ram down to 512 mb, perform the installation, then modify the vcache ini setting and then add more RAM - assuming the system is a dual-boot. If the system is not a dual boot, then I don't think that the typical user should worry about only having 512 mb of ram. And besides, for some motherboards it may not be possible to have 768 mb of ram. If the board has only 2 DIMM slots, then sometimes you can only go from 512mb to 1gb.

[LoneCrusader]

My point was that unless you can find a way to create a slip-streamed win-98se install CD (with a good assortment of patched and updated files rolled into it) then the typical case will be that someone will have an original MS CD and it's not easy for most people to deal with installing an original win-95/98fe CD on a system with more than 512 mb ram or with a CPU > 2.2 mhz.

I agree with your point, was just pointing out that the issues do have a solution.

It should also be possible by simply bringing the system ram down to 512 mb, perform the installation, then modify the vcache ini setting and then add more RAM - assuming the system is a dual-boot. If the system is not a dual boot, then I don't think that the typical user should worry about only having 512 mb of ram. And besides, for some motherboards it may not be possible to have 768 mb of ram. If the board has only 2 DIMM slots, then sometimes you can only go from 512mb to 1gb.

Yes, I always just start work on a new system with 512MB of RAM installed. I know that some members here have been able to use more than 512MB by adjusting this or that setting or by using the USP, however, in my own experience none of these ever worked. RLoew's patch solves the problem in seconds and no more tweaking, hassle, what have you. Its the only method I recommend.

As far has a typical user having > 512MB of RAM, it depends on what they expect to use their system for. The average computer user would probably not be willing to go through the process of setting up a Windows 9X machine today, so most people who are attempting this are not "typical" or "average." If the user intends to use their computer for gaming, I can definitely say that > 512MB of RAM is very beneficial, even for games that were originally released for Windows 9X (WarCraft III comes to mind here).

I can also say that on one occasion before I installed > 512MB of RAM on this machine that I managed to crash the system by using up all of the available memory... on one single webpage with one window of Firefox open. It was some news article with thousands of comments, so not something you run across every day, but it is easily resolved by a RAM upgrade. IMHO, if your motherboard can handle it, by all means upgrade RAM to the max.

[dencorso]

Yeah, well... I think LoneCrusader put it quite aptly: I usually don't think much about how the "average user" will manage to do things around Win 9x/ME simply because I do really doubt nowadays any "average user" really exists that will opt for going Win 9x/ME, instead of one of the NT-family OSes. Hence, in my view, the only 9x/ME users remaining either are already "advanced users" or seriously intend to become such.