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

[SMCorp]

Thanks for the great replies, guys, and sorry for my absence. MSFN hasn't been e-mailing me replies even though the mailing address is correct and my replies are on. I just happened to check back to see why this was dead, but it was a hot topic and I appreciate it.

Let me check my details and reply in detail shortly.

[Kwibus]

"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 got my PCI-E Geforce 6800 256 ram card working by using the vmm32.vxd (real mode) and vcache.vxd files from Rloews demo patch for using more than 1 GB of Ram. Without it my graphics card had over two gigabytes of ram according to dxdiagnose and would crash when running directx 9 applications. This suggest that the PCI-E 6800 card can also use turbo cache. I have not had time to try it.

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. http://www.msfn.org/...ith-windows-98/

A lot of the basic parts of your mainboard work well with the default win 98 drivers.

You can sometimes also use part of the drivers form windows 2k or xp.

Win 98 drivers from a previous version of the main board sometimes work as well on newer versions.

If onboard parts like network card usb ports and soundcards do not work you can use PCI cards that do support win 98.

If there are no official win 98 drivers for a motherboard it thus does not mean you can not build a fully functional computer with it.

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

If you're computer is set to automatically obtain an IP adress and does not get one it can spend quite a while waiting for it although i do not think it waits long enough to explain the full 18 minutes.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Kwibus

[Guest wsxedcrfv]

"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 got my PCI-E Geforce 6800 256 ram card working by using the vmm32.vxd (real mode) and vcache.vxd files from Rloews demo patch for using more than 1 GB of Ram. Without it my graphics card had over two gigabytes of ram according to dxdiagnose and would crash when running directx 9 applications. This suggest that the PCI-E 6800 card can also use turbo cache. I have not had time to try it.

My advice for the general win-98 user is that he avoid building a system or attempting to install win-98 on a system with a PCIe video card, and especially a PCIe video card advertised as having "turbo cache", or otherwise advertised as having more than 256 mb ram.

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. http://www.msfn.org/...ith-windows-98/

A lot of the basic parts of your mainboard work well with the default win 98 drivers.

I challenge that comment. Without proper north and south-bridge drivers, you will have very poor windows-98 performance (IDE DOS-compatibility mode access), and will most likely not be able to install the proper video card driver and therefore you will be left with 640x480 screen resolution.

And note that I said to look for win-98 *chipset* drivers. I did not say that you can or should expect that the motherboard maker is the best or only place to get win-98 drivers for a given board.

If there are no official win 98 drivers for a motherboard it thus does not mean you can not build a fully functional computer with it.

If you can't find win-98 north and southbridge drivers for a given board, then it's a waste of time trying to install and run win-98 on that board.

[rloew]

I challenge that comment. Without proper north and south-bridge drivers, you will have very poor windows-98 performance (IDE DOS-compatibility mode access),

I haven't seen a motherboard yet that forces DOS Compatability mode for IDE Hard Drives, at least PATA ones.

I have a Patch for SATA.

[dencorso]

The Win 9x default chipset drivers are not nearly as bad as you make them, wsxedcrfv. Then, there's Bearwindows VBEMP(9x) and also Tihiy's tweaked Win3x SVGA drivers for Win9x (which can run in safe mode, too). While it's not perfect, this is sufficient for many users. I think you've made your point, already, wsxedcrfv: there's no need to hammer it down. With more modern boards, there's a limit to what one can do. But some of us can live with it (see, for instance, Sfor's thread on the Eee PC, where there are links to VBEMP(9x), too).

@RLoew: If you didn't already know about Tihiy's drivers, you might find them interesting. I do use them for Safe Mode, and I'm quite satisfied with the result.

[rloew]

The Win 9x default chipset drivers are not nearly as bad as you make them, wsxedcrfv. Then, there's Bearwindows VBEMP(9x) and also Tihiy's tweaked Win3x SVGA drivers for Win9x (which can run in safe mode, too). While it's not perfect, this is sufficient for many users. I think you've made your point, already, wsxedcrfv: there's no need to hammer it down. With more modern boards, there's a limit to what one can do. But some of us can live with it (see, for instance, Sfor's thread on the Eee PC, where there are links to VBEMP(9x), too).

@RLoew: If you didn't already know about Tihiy's drivers, you might find them interesting. I do use them for Safe Mode, and I'm quite satisfied with the result.

I downloaded it in April. The copy I got was corrupt so I didn't do anything with it.

I downloaded it again earlier tonight, got an even shorter file, that was unuseable.

I just downloaded it a third time and got a good copy. I will look at it.

[rloew]

The Win 9x default chipset drivers are not nearly as bad as you make them, wsxedcrfv. Then, there's Bearwindows VBEMP(9x) and also Tihiy's tweaked Win3x SVGA drivers for Win9x (which can run in safe mode, too). While it's not perfect, this is sufficient for many users. I think you've made your point, already, wsxedcrfv: there's no need to hammer it down. With more modern boards, there's a limit to what one can do. But some of us can live with it (see, for instance, Sfor's thread on the Eee PC, where there are links to VBEMP(9x), too).

@RLoew: If you didn't already know about Tihiy's drivers, you might find them interesting. I do use them for Safe Mode, and I'm quite satisfied with the result.

I downloaded it in April. The copy I got was corrupt so I didn't do anything with it.

I downloaded it again earlier tonight, got an even shorter file, that was unuseable.

I just downloaded it a third time and got a good copy. I will look at it.

I tried the SVGA Drivers both in Normal Mode and in Safe Mode. Windows worked but DOS Boxes do not. I could run a Full-Screen DOS but got a Black Screen on exit.

[dencorso]

Well, it seems the DOS boxes are the problem area, here as well as in bearwindows VBEMP(9x)...

I hadn't noticed it, because when I enter Safe mode (which is quite rare), it is to do things I cannot do in a DOS box, or are easier to do from windows. Like removing installed drivers from Device Manager or editing the registry. Most things I'd need a DOS box to do, I can also do from true DOS, so I boot to it, instead of to Safe Mode.

It's a pity, because this means we still do not have a fully usable generic video driver.