Jump to content

Windows 98 on ASUS Modern Card and FX6300: Possible?


Eddie Phizika
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is Win 98 or any Win 9X operating system compatible with the above specs? Or better, can it actually detect a modern Seagate Hard drive to run the Setup?

My last try with Win2000 was a complete failure. But i didn't tried to follow any guide on this website (which i actually registered not only for help seeking). Are there procedures to this specific hardware? Anyone may help me with whatever you have, i study CS so no deal with editing or doing advanced system stuff. My purpose is to try diverse resources, games and maybe even development with this OS. Thanks.

Edited by Eddie Phizika
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Eddie Phizika said:

Is Win 98 or any Win 9X operating system compatible with the above specs? Or better, can it actually detect a modern Seagate Hard drive to run the Setup?

My last try with Win2000 was a complete failure. But i didn't tried to follow any guide on this website (which i actually registered not only for help seeking). Are there procedures to this specific hardware? Anyone may help me with whatever you have, i study CS so no deal with editing or doing advanced system stuff. My purpose is to try diverse resources, games and maybe even development with this OS. Thanks.

Compatible? Not really. However whether it can be made to work or not mainly depends on your level of determination to succeed. How much work (read:trial and error and time) are you willing to invest getting Windows 9x running? Do you accept that non-free patches may be required to get you results?

More specs on your planned system might be helpful... but here's a few quick points to consider:
-Windows 9x will only see and use one CPU core.
-Windows 9x will crash with more than 512MB of RAM; some tweaks MAY take you to 1.2GB; paid patch will definitely take you to the 32-bit limit of 4GB.
-Windows 9x will not use Native IDE SATA controllers/drives without a paid patch. AHCI is even worse. If you can't set your HDD controllers to Legacy IDE mode you'll have to deal with slow DOS-mode compatibility filesystem.
-Windows 9x has been without any drivers for new graphics cards since the end of the NVidia 7xxx series and the ATI X8xx series. You will need one of these or you will have to either deal with 640x480x16 resolution or try using VBE9X which will get you better resolutions but no hardware acceleration and frequently crashes with DOS Boxes.
-Windows 9x has been without any drivers for network cards for a while as well. Realtek and Marvell based controllers may work depending on version.
-Windows 9x has no HD Audio drivers whatsoever. Be prepared to use an add-in card.
-(Your motherboard will probably need 2 or more regular PCI slots for 9x-compatible cards.)

If you've read and digested this and still wish to try, then you've come to the right place. :lol:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, LoneCrusader said:

-Windows 9x will crash with more than 512MB of RAM; some tweaks MAY take you to 1.2GB; paid patch will definitely take you to the 32-bit limit of 4GB.

This I think I may can confirm Windows 98SE doesn't crash with more than 512MB of ram on physical hardware (Dell Latitude D600 has 1gb ram) although I wouldn't recommend going over 512mb, it might be the reason 98SE and ME are so unstable on the laptop...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Windows 9x will crash with more than 512MB of RAM

Don't you mean that *during installation* Win-9x will crash if the system has more than 512 mb ram, but after installation the amount of ram can almost always be increased to 1 gb with the correct editing of the win.ini file?

> Windows 9x will not use Native IDE SATA controllers/drives without a paid patch

Don't you mean to say that if win-98 sata drivers are available for the given controller chip (as is the case with at least the Silicon Image 3112/3114 chips) then that means win-98 *will not* be using ESDI_506.pdr (but will be using some other 32-bit driver) when the SATA controller is set to Native/SATA mode in the bios?  (in other words, for at least the 3112/3114 chips, Win-98 is fully compatible with SATA controllers that are set to native/sata mode in the system bios because there are available win-98 drivers for said chips).
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ said:

This I think I may can confirm Windows 98SE doesn't crash with more than 512MB of ram on physical hardware (Dell Latitude D600 has 1gb ram) although I wouldn't recommend going over 512mb, it might be the reason 98SE and ME are so unstable on the laptop...

This is not necessarily directed at you personally, but I love how we seem to have a sudden influx of people around here who want to "dispute" long established knowledge. :no:

You say "98SE doesn't crash with more than 512MB of RAM on physical hardware" when it is a known, well established, indisputable fact that it DOES crash. I've seen and done this myself countless times over the years. I've actually used Windows 9x as a primary, day to day, production operating system. Not just as a toy to amuse myself running VM's and wasting time while never spending actual "production" time on a system which requires stability.
And for the record, I did also specify that tweaks MAY get you to 1.2GB. This is NOT guaranteed. This does NOT always work. And it most definitely WILL make your system unstable. So, why post and say "it doesn't crash with more than 512MB" when it does, and then say "I wouldn't recommend going over 512MB," because "it might be the reason they're unstable." Might?? Ya think?? :rolleyes:

20 minutes ago, Nomen said:

>Windows 9x will crash with more than 512MB of RAM

Don't you mean that *during installation* Win-9x will crash if the system has more than 512 mb ram, but after installation the amount of ram can almost always be increased to 1 gb with the correct editing of the win.ini file?

No, I don't mean that. I mean what I said. "Almost always?" Certainly not. Those tweaks never worked for me. Only once did I see 9x run with more than 512MB and without crashing, and this was when using an old version of the Unofficial Service Pack (which I believe included Xeno's VCACHE patch along with said "tweaks") and the system was very unstable. What's the point of those tweaks if it makes the resulting system unstable?

24 minutes ago, Nomen said:

> Windows 9x will not use Native IDE SATA controllers/drives without a paid patch

Don't you mean to say that if win-98 sata drivers are available for the given controller chip (as is the case with at least the Silicon Image 3112/3114 chips) then that means win-98 *will not* be using ESDI_506.pdr (but will be using some other 32-bit driver) when the SATA controller is set to Native/SATA mode in the bios?  (in other words, for at least the 3112/3114 chips, Win-98 is fully compatible with SATA controllers that are set to native/sata mode in the system bios because there are available win-98 drivers for said chips).
 

Fine, Windows 98 drivers are available for a handful of early SATA controllers. But what "modern" motherboards are actually using these chips today? So they had 9x drivers 10 years ago when they were used. Great. But who uses them now? What good is this to the OP? The OP specified a "modern" system. I haven't seen a board using those SATA chips in 8 years or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, LoneCrusader said:

Compatible? Not really. However whether it can be made to work or not mainly depends on your level of determination to succeed. How much work (read:trial and error and time) are you willing to invest getting Windows 9x running? Do you accept that non-free patches may be required to get you results?

More specs on your planned system might be helpful... but here's a few quick points to consider:
-Windows 9x will only see and use one CPU core.
-Windows 9x will crash with more than 512MB of RAM; some tweaks MAY take you to 1.2GB; paid patch will definitely take you to the 32-bit limit of 4GB.
-Windows 9x will not use Native IDE SATA controllers/drives without a paid patch. AHCI is even worse. If you can't set your HDD controllers to Legacy IDE mode you'll have to deal with slow DOS-mode compatibility filesystem.
-Windows 9x has been without any drivers for new graphics cards since the end of the NVidia 7xxx series and the ATI X8xx series. You will need one of these or you will have to either deal with 640x480x16 resolution or try using VBE9X which will get you better resolutions but no hardware acceleration and frequently crashes with DOS Boxes.
-Windows 9x has been without any drivers for network cards for a while as well. Realtek and Marvell based controllers may work depending on version.
-Windows 9x has no HD Audio drivers whatsoever. Be prepared to use an add-in card.
-(Your motherboard will probably need 2 or more regular PCI slots for 9x-compatible cards.)

If you've read and digested this and still wish to try, then you've come to the right place. :lol:

Sorry. Compatible was a ridiculously default word to use, i wasn't taking compatibility in a default way, but in a tweaker/dev/hacking way which i would suppose there were already users who did it and shared their guide to everyone. hahahaha

Well, so we have some harsh challenges.

-Windows 9x will only see and use one CPU core.

Not that i actually care about using one core in 9x, frankly, i will not be forcing heavy processing and multithreading. It would be pointless.

-Windows 9x will crash with more than 512MB of RAM; some tweaks MAY take you to 1.2GB; paid patch will definitely take you to the 32-bit limit of 4GB.

This is a tougher one. Can the OS actually detect the 1200MB naturally (i mean, without any extra external custom patch coding) with these tweaks? which are them and what do they actually are about? Should i go straight to the sticked guides in the main win 98 forum?

-Windows 9x will not use Native IDE SATA controllers/drives without a paid patch. AHCI is even worse. If you can't set your HDD controllers to Legacy IDE mode you'll have to deal with slow DOS-mode compatibility filesystem.

Alright, this is a challenge. My HDD is a interface switch based one by the BIOS, so i may choose IDE (which didn't actually helped me with Win2K). I'm not really intimidated with MS-DOS performance. Again i would expect to look first at the sticker guides, which i'm going to do even before you reply me about this.

-Windows 9x has been without any drivers for new graphics cards since the end of the NVidia 7xxx series and the ATI X8xx series. You will need one of these or you will have to either deal with 640x480x16 resolution or try using VBE9X

Well, default VGA would be troublesome due to a big screen. VBE9X would be a more adequate solution, IF Radeon R7 is a good choice for it (hard to know as NVIDIA is MUCH more usual and supported everywhere)

-Windows 9x has been without any drivers for network cards for a while as well. Realtek and Marvell based controllers may work depending on version.

Well, its a Realtek one. BUT I'm not sure if it really offers default support for Win9x, something extra to deal with...

-Windows 9x has no HD Audio drivers whatsoever. Be prepared to use an add-in card.

Interesting. I'm long curious to try a Soundblaster (where can i find one? Maybe ripping one from a old computer? It could make more sense to buy the old PC itself then... ), as i find my onboard sound lame at best... Maybe not now, i can temporarily live without it.

Well, i'm really interested in it. Do you still think its a good idea or i'm maybe better served by buying a pentium III era computer?

21 hours ago, LoneCrusader said:

This is not necessarily directed at you personally, but I love how we seem to have a sudden influx of people around here who want to "dispute" long established knowledge. :no:

You say "98SE doesn't crash with more than 512MB of RAM on physical hardware" when it is a known, well established, indisputable fact that it DOES crash. I've seen and done this myself countless times over the years. I've actually used Windows 9x as a primary, day to day, production operating system. Not just as a toy to amuse myself running VM's and wasting time while never spending actual "production" time on a system which requires stability.
And for the record, I did also specify that tweaks MAY get you to 1.2GB. This is NOT guaranteed. This does NOT always work. And it most definitely WILL make your system unstable. So, why post and say "it doesn't crash with more than 512MB" when it does, and then say "I wouldn't recommend going over 512MB," because "it might be the reason they're unstable." Might?? Ya think?? :rolleyes:

No, I don't mean that. I mean what I said. "Almost always?" Certainly not. Those tweaks never worked for me. Only once did I see 9x run with more than 512MB and without crashing, and this was when using an old version of the Unofficial Service Pack (which I believe included Xeno's VCACHE patch along with said "tweaks") and the system was very unstable. What's the point of those tweaks if it makes the resulting system unstable?

Fine, Windows 98 drivers are available for a handful of early SATA controllers. But what "modern" motherboards are actually using these chips today? So they had 9x drivers 10 years ago when they were used. Great. But who uses them now? What good is this to the OP? The OP specified a "modern" system. I haven't seen a board using those SATA chips in 8 years or more.

Well, i give up on more than 512MB then,. :P knew about crashing above it but the tweaking possibility made me think i could maybe use it without turning everything into a mess.

And, in fact, this is actually a mid 2015 VERY low end gaming machine. it has NOTHING on Win 98, i couldn't even make 2K setup run, i mean, even while changing to every interface mode available. So i'm not expecting that natively unless with some tweak or hacking to change it.

Edited by Tommy
Fixed your double post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Eddie Phizika said:

-Windows 9x will crash with more than 512MB of RAM; some tweaks MAY take you to 1.2GB; paid patch will definitely take you to the 32-bit limit of 4GB.

This is a tougher one. Can the OS actually detect the 1200MB naturally (i mean, without any extra external custom patch coding) with these tweaks? which are them and what do they actually are about? Should i go straight to the sticked guides in the main win 98 forum?

5 minutes ago, Eddie Phizika said:

Well, i give up on more than 512MB then,. :P knew about crashing above it but the tweaking possibility made me think i could maybe use it without turning everything into a mess.

I personally don't think trying to run with over 512MB of RAM with tweaks is a good idea, but as you see there are obviously others who swear by it. Apparently "YMMV - Your mileage may vary." It may work for you on your system and it may not. From what I remember of the old discussions offhand it is also relevant how much memory is physically installed; i.e. having only a 1GB RAM module installed and using the limiting tweaks may work, but if you put in 4GB RAM for other OS'es in dual-boot then the tweak that worked at 1GB may not work anymore.

16 minutes ago, Eddie Phizika said:

-Windows 9x will not use Native IDE SATA controllers/drives without a paid patch. AHCI is even worse. If you can't set your HDD controllers to Legacy IDE mode you'll have to deal with slow DOS-mode compatibility filesystem.

Alright, this is a challenge. My HDD is a interface switch based one by the BIOS, so i may choose IDE (which didn't actually helped me with Win2K). I'm not really intimidated with MS-DOS performance. Again i would expect to look first at the sticker guides, which i'm going to do even before you reply me about this.

The stickies cover most things, although sometimes one has to dig through several pages to cover an entire subject. MSFN for 9x is like a vast museum that one can get lost in. So much information is here that doesn't exist anywhere else. And there are too few of us left to keep it all dusted off. :( But I digress...
"IDE Mode" on a modern board will almost always mean "Native IDE SATA" rather than "Legacy IDE PATA." Only Legacy mode works properly with 9x.

21 minutes ago, Eddie Phizika said:

-Windows 9x has been without any drivers for new graphics cards since the end of the NVidia 7xxx series and the ATI X8xx series. You will need one of these or you will have to either deal with 640x480x16 resolution or try using VBE9X

Well, default VGA would be troublesome due to a big screen. VBE9X would be a more adequate solution, IF Radeon R7 is a good choice for it (hard to know as NVIDIA is MUCH more usual and supported everywhere)

VBE9X is a nice project but it's very limited. For instance without hardware acceleration 9x-era games and such probably would not run properly if at all. It essentially serves to escape 640x480x16, but that's it.

23 minutes ago, Eddie Phizika said:

-Windows 9x has been without any drivers for network cards for a while as well. Realtek and Marvell based controllers may work depending on version.

Well, its a Realtek one. BUT I'm not sure if it really offers default support for Win9x, something extra to deal with...

-Windows 9x has no HD Audio drivers whatsoever. Be prepared to use an add-in card.

Interesting. I'm long curious to try a Soundblaster (where can i find one? Maybe ripping one from a old computer? It could make more sense to buy the old PC itself then... ), as i find my onboard sound lame at best... Maybe not now, i can temporarily live without it.

Well, i'm really interested in it. Do you still think its a good idea or i'm maybe better served by buying a pentium III era computer?

RTL8111D or previous work as far as I know; RTL8111E does NOT work. A buggy driver exists that will work with some "E" cards but not at full gigabit speeds.
SoundBlaster would probably be best for 9x; just be sure you pick a compatible one.

25 minutes ago, Eddie Phizika said:

Well, i'm really interested in it. Do you still think its a good idea or i'm maybe better served by buying a pentium III era computer?

Pentium 4 era is best in my opinion. Most everything still had 9x drivers, including some early SATA chips as mentioned by Nomen. Intel 865/875 chipset boards are best. A rare handful of boards with these chipsets exist in Socket 775 models as well, although still limited to 800HMz FSB CPU's. Search around, I've given lists of such boards here before several times.

21 minutes ago, Eddie Phizika said:

And, in fact, this is actually a mid 2015 entry level gaming machine. it has NOTHING on Win 98, i couldn't even make 2K setup run, i mean, even while changing to every interface mode available. So i'm not expecting that natively.

I've currently got Windows 95 OSR2 and 98SE "running" on a board using the Intel X79 chipset and a Core i7. I haven't used them for any "day to day" activity, but they're up and running nonetheless. 7950GT graphics card with working drivers. Haven't gotten around to Sound and LAN yet though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as your mileage may vary, I've honestly never had any issues running Windows 98 SE with 1gig of RAM without patches. Unless I just don't do some of the things with it that help trigger it to crash, I don't know.

With that being said though, if you're truly serious about using Windows 98 in a production environment, I'd completely recommend Rloew's SATA and RAM patches. Not that I'm skeptical of the great Rloew, but I was skeptical of the SATA patch at first because I didn't realize that the SATA control despite also having IDE was causing my problems. But I did bite the bullet and bought it and it worked, it cured my problems. Just those two things can really make your life a lot more simple and less of a headache. The RAM patch I would say is totally ideal, even for less than 1gig of RAM, it can help stabilize the system. But I too use a Windows 98 system daily and those two items have made it possible to have a nearly modern system. As for my systems, I always use add on cards anyway for video and sound, so as long as you have compatible cards, you're good to go. Unless you do some serious high end gaming, mostly any video card from the mid-2000s would suffice quite nicely as long as it has drivers for Windows 98.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, > 1.5 GiB is the moment where RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch becomes an absolute must, but as already said, it'll give much added stability to anything from 0.5 GiB on, and also allow the use of some Video and/or LAN cards which are otherwise a no-no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 21.1.2017 at 2:37 AM, Eddie Phizika said:

Is Win 98 or any Win 9X operating system compatible with the above specs? Or better, can it actually detect a modern Seagate Hard drive to run the Setup?

My last try with Win2000 was a complete failure. But i didn't tried to follow any guide on this website (which i actually registered not only for help seeking). Are there procedures to this specific hardware? Anyone may help me with whatever you have, i study CS so no deal with editing or doing advanced system stuff. My purpose is to try diverse resources, games and maybe even development with this OS. Thanks.

I'm running an FX4320 on an MSI 970A SLI Krait (and an FX 8350 on an ASRock 890FX Deluxe5, and an Opteron 8320 on an ASRock 970 Pro3 R2.0).

All and each with SSDs, Audigy <1|2> PCI, Realtek 8111B PCIe Gigabit, 16GB Ram (1GB visible to W98SE), EVGA 7900GTX PCIe 512MB (or some 7600GT PCIe 256MB), SATA-DVD.

All have Multiboot with XP and W10, where sometimes i use additional hardware (like USB3.0, GTX 960, more SSDs).

My only Intel-System at the moment is a Q9550S (reduced speed because 1000FSB) on an ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA R2.0, 4GB Ram (1GB visible to W98SE, 3.3 visible to XP and W10) with an IDE-SSD (W98SE), 2 SATA-SSDs (XP and W10), a Gainward GeForce 7900GT AGP 512MB, the obligatory Audigy PCI, and an Intel Pro MT Gigabit PCI.

I use an 1680x1050 IPS Monitor with a KVM-switch, but everything works on an 1920x1200 IPS Monitor as well.

This is about the most modern hardware i get to run, and i can play almost every game on these PCs - i just have to choose the "right" OS for each, and sometimes turn down details... ;-)

(I have older systems in my cellar, although in an disassembled state).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...