xan1242 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Sorry for yelling for help already on my first post. So,I have a modern PC and I did follow the instructions in this topic:And my PC has Gigabyte M68M-S2P (Rev 1.0) motherboard which is AM2+,my CPU is AMD Athlon II x2 250 (AM3 processor) and I have 2GB ram.I know I saw somewhere in this forum that AM2/AM2+/AM3 motherboards are incompatible with Windows 98 SE.It does boot,but after a half an hour,and that's way too long.Is there any way to fix this?In BOOTLOG.TXT I see some fonts that were unable to load..Could that be the problem?I doubt the SATA hard drives could be the problem,because I tried to install it on IDE hard drive and on USB stick as well (because the BIOS is capable to boot off SATA and USB) and it still takes too long to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Now you know what incompatible means. It has a nVidia GeForce 7025/nForce 630a chipset. You probably are running in DOS compatibility mode, for lack of drivers. What;s the size of the HDD's you've booted from? And of the pendrives? Of course, it probably can be solved by adding both RLoew's >137GB and SATA patches (which are not free). If you have interest in them, there's more info here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xan1242 Posted July 16, 2011 Author Share Posted July 16, 2011 The size of my SATA HDD is 37 GB,my IDE HDD is 40 GB and my USB Stick is 4 GB.I am trying to install it on a 4 GB partition on my SATA disk.I usually hide/unplug my 1 TB HDD when installing and booting.Hmm,I would rather not pay for old software (well,except for games,maybe) because I find it not worth paying and I don't think I need the patch because BIOS can already emulate the HDD as IDE.So,the chipset is making problems?How come I can boot into Mini Windows 98 without any problem whatsoever?i guess I could take some patches (if there are any) from there.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 On some of the newest Motherboards, some of the SATA issues seem to have propagated to the PATA firmware. I had to update my SATA Patch to include PATA drives.When my new Computer froze during Windows Bootup with the Drive Light on solid, I verified it was stuck initializing the Hard Drives. I rewrote my Patches to make it work properly.I never waited half an hour to see if the would ever boot. It could be timing out one sector at a time until it finally loads Windows.Windows 98 is "old" but my Patches are not. Your only alternative is to run in compatibility mode, which will be slow but not take half an hour.Booting Windows 98 from a USB Drive requires special handling, otherwise the USB Driver steals the Drive from the System and it crashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xan1242 Posted July 17, 2011 Author Share Posted July 17, 2011 Windows 98 is "old" but my Patches are not. Your only alternative is to run in compatibility mode, which will be slow but not take half an hour.Booting Windows 98 from a USB Drive requires special handling, otherwise the USB Driver steals the Drive from the System and it crashes.I know,but I still don't find worth paying for an OS old like that.Unfortunately my motherboard does not have any compatibility mode option in BIOS.Yeah,when it finds the USB device,it steals it and then stops it.That's what happened during the installation when it was scanning for devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 The MS-DOS compatibility mode is in windows, not in the BIOS. Google is your friend: KB130179 and KB151911 are a good enough start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Windows 98 is "old" but my Patches are not. Your only alternative is to run in compatibility mode, which will be slow but not take half an hour.Booting Windows 98 from a USB Drive requires special handling, otherwise the USB Driver steals the Drive from the System and it crashes.I know,but I still don't find worth paying for an OS old like that.Unfortunately my motherboard does not have any compatibility mode option in BIOS.You get what you pay for.The Compatibility Mode is in Windows not the BIOS.You can either go into Safe Mode and set it, or you can go into DOS and rename the ESDI_506.PDR file in WINDOWS\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS.Yeah,when it finds the USB device,it steals it and then stops it.That's what happened during the installation when it was scanning for devices.You have to prevent the USB drivers from being installed, at least for the Port you are booting from.I have USB keys with bootable Windows 98, 98SE and ME on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjecina Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Sorry xan1242 , but you have not looked my topic on this site and because of wrong chipset you must choose between rloew option or selling your MBO and buying AS ROCK AM2NF3-VSTA which is without question BEST modern MBO with official support for Windows 98 SE and if I do not make mistake ONLY MBO with Windows 98 SE official drivers for AM3 processors (in your case:ADX250OCK23GQ processor) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Sorry xan1242 , but you have not looked my topic on this site and because of wrong chipset you must choose between rloew option or selling your MBO and buying AS ROCK AM2NF3-VSTA which is without question BEST modern MBO with official support for Windows 98 SE and if I do not make mistake ONLY MBO with Windows 98 SE official drivers for AM3 processors (in your case:ADX250OCK23GQ processor)I just went to the Asrock Website. They do not list any drivers for Windows 9X. They start at Windows 2000. If you have Drivers for it, they are no longer official.Unless you have the 98SE Version of the RAID Driver, my Patch will still be needed for SATA.The Specifications say it is for AM2/AM2+ not AM3. It will tolerate AM3, but with reduced performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainyd Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I just went to the Asrock Website. They do not list any drivers for Windows 9X. They start at Windows 2000. If you have Drivers for it, they are no longer official.Unless you have the 98SE Version of the RAID Driver, my Patch will still be needed for SATA.The Specifications say it is for AM2/AM2+ not AM3. It will tolerate AM3, but with reduced performance.Rjecina is correct: this motherboard using nForce3 250 chipset and you can find drivers for it (on Nvidia webpage or other place). Older version of HT would have a rather small impact on overall performance.Btw, Rjecina, ALiveDual-eSATA2 is IMHO even better because of the presence of PCI-E slot (also 2 x SATAII/ 1 x eSATAII connectors). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) I just went to the Asrock Website. They do not list any drivers for Windows 9X. They start at Windows 2000. If you have Drivers for it, they are no longer official.Unless you have the 98SE Version of the RAID Driver, my Patch will still be needed for SATA.The Specifications say it is for AM2/AM2+ not AM3. It will tolerate AM3, but with reduced performance.Rjecina is correct: this motherboard using nForce3 250 chipset and you can find drivers for it (on Nvidia webpage or other place). Older version of HT would have a rather small impact on overall performance.Btw, Rjecina, ALiveDual-eSATA2 is IMHO even better because of the presence of PCI-E slot (also 2 x SATAII/ 1 x eSATAII connectors).It depends on your definition of "official". Chipset manufacturers often refer you to the Motherboard Company's website for official drivers, as decisions make by the Motherboard manufacturer or BIOS developer can affect the requirements for a Driver. Edited July 19, 2011 by rloew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Well, I, for one, think that any driver is way better than no driver... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Well, I, for one, think that any driver is way better than no driver... Corollary:Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. Truism or tautology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Well, I, for one, think that any driver is way better than no driver... I don't disagree. I take my drivers where I can find them. But it makes that particular Motherboard a lot less "special". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainyd Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It depends on your definition of "official". Chipset manufacturers often refer you to the Motherboard Company's website for official drivers, as decisions make by the Motherboard manufacturer or BIOS developer can affect the requirements for a Driver.Chipset manufacturers' drivers are definitely official - I have AsRock motherboard and I've been using them (from former ULI ELectronics). Motherboard makers usually use them too, eventually they modify them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now