Jump to content

Running Windows 98 in 2020 and beyond...


Wunderbar98

Recommended Posts

Thanks again for feedback. Agreed DosFreak with software not much is impossible, this vanilla install is happily using YouTube, usually just a combination of creativity, improved configuration and new code. Thanks for the WebOne Proxy link, bookmarked for later. Using the modern browsers proposed, a proxy is not necessary or desired.

Just to clear up confusion ClassicNick. This motherboard only supports 384 MB RAM, why another tower build is necessary. Just dragged up the hardware, will test RAM soon, install Windows 98, etc. Hopefully 1.8 GHz with 1 GB RAM, probably not SSE2 capable.

Vanilla Windows 98 -> QEMU v0.8.2 -> TinyCore-7.2.iso -> SeaMonkey v2.46 -> manually bump to SeaMonkey latest.

Anyone with maxed out Windows 98 hardware and an emulator could test immediately. The Tiny Core ISO is only ~17 MB to hopefully reduce load. The SeaMonkey trialed would be the latest, v2.49.4 (non-SSE2) or v2.49.5 (with SSE2). Tiny Core can also be used to build whatever Firefox version is desired, unless the script has broken, seemed to work for Firefox v49.

Enhanced Windows 98 systems should be able to use a more recent emulator, preferrably accelerated. Newer emulators may be able to use newer Tiny Core releases. My setup gets boot errors and kernel panics after v7.2. Unlikely performance will be acceptable, won't know until it's tested. Emulation performance has always been disappointing in the past, prefer multi-boot, just want to test.

For me the test isn't to load yet another browser, patched and slightly newer. It's to load a browser i would feel comfortable using for banking. Also i would like the browser binaries to be retrieved from the source website, not third party. Everyone needs to decide for themselves which browser is acceptable for banking type activities. To me this is the last link to determine whether Windows 98 can be made a fully viable all day, every day OS in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hardware assembled, needed new CMOS battery, added a CD-ROM drive. MSI main board, most everything's nForce, not sure that's good. The MSI site still has Windows 98 drivers for ethernet, audio, etc. Graphic card is ATI Xpert 2000 Pro 32 MB, will hunt driver. Still lots of Windows 98 drivers available online, try to get them direct from manufacturers site if possible.

En masse 1.5 GB (3 modules) memtest from a Linux live-CD showed problems. Took some time to clean module contacts, then individually re-tested, finally en masse tested again, all good. Slow 10 GB rust drive prepped, fails SMART so SMART check was disabled in BIOS to allow unhindered boot. Sounds like there's sand inside! Used this noisy drive for years for business fax, hope it finishes another mission.

Maintaining retro hardware is fun and rewarding. A little loving care and cleaning goes a long way. These RAM modules had some corrosion, easily removed with a soft, clean cotton cloth and isopropyl alcohol. After prolonged runtime, 2-3 years on a heavy use system, the power supply unit gets removed, dismantled, dry brushed and vacuumed clean. They get disgustingly dusty, are a fire hazard and stop providing cooling airflow. Helps keep them alive a long time.

Heavy use systems also get a thorough tower cleaning: remove and clean in and around motherboard, remove and clean all cards and slots, re-seat all connections, re-seat CPU with fresh thermal paste. Old thermal paste is removed with alcohol and a clean cloth or cotton tips. Rarely cooling fan bearings need 1/2 a drop of light machine oil. Alcohol also works well to remove glue residue from unwanted case and component stickers/labels. The alcohol dries immediately and leaves no trace chemical. In BIOS usually activate a CPU temperature warning alarm between 60-70 degrees.

Started Windows 98 install, already out of memory issues even after reducing to 1 GB physical RAM, will post more later. Tried system.ini modifications without success, maybe R. Loew's RAM limitation patch? Trying to test Windows 98's limits has been a good experience, as most users now have hardware greatly exceeding this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never trust an old browser with an old OS to do banking or secure related stuff with my money... 

Although I am curious to know if latest SeaMonkey on Windows 2000 + BWC Kernel Ex is safe enough. Probably the answer is NO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took a look at the WebOne Proxy link @DosFreak, looks like an interesting project. Unless mistaken, however, the goal appears to make super-retro browsers work in newer Windows OSs. Minimum system requirements appear to be Windows XP, preferably Windows 7. Pretty much the opposite of what i hope to trial, using an old OS to run the newest possible unmodified browser.
https://github.com/atauenis/webone

The modified Firefox 45 browsers you mentioned a page back from @roytam1 look like they were coded for Windows XP. I would consider them vanilla if they were specifically modified for vanilla Windows 98, but me thinks XP. Without @siria the link magician i probably couldn't even find the download link for these browsers. If you suspect they were modified for Windows 98 i would be happy to test install. Vanilla Windows 98 is presently stuck in the Firefox v2 era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bruninho. Was thinking of you recently, getting latest SeaMonkey running in Windows 2000. Personal preference is to do banking type activities from a newer GNU/Linux release. If i didn't use Linux, however, a buttoned-down Windows 2000 with latest SeaMonkey wouldn't be a bad deal, everyone needs to decide for themselves. I would use Windows 2000 any day of the week over later Windows offerings, some of which border the definition of spyware, hidden behind a fancy EULA. Not sure about Apple, they've had their issues too. Trying to get the latest SeaMonkey running in Windows 98 using virtualization, presently struggling with hardware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never encountered this Windows 98 setup error before 'Setup can not install Windows 98' with 'Error detected trying to read or write to your hard disk'. Simple solution in the BIOS -> Integrated Peripherals -> IDE Function -> ensure IDE DMA Transfer Access is enabled. This appears to have been disabled by default on this motherboard, after replacing CMOS battery, using Phoenix Award BIOS v4.1. So with similar errors, try checking out the BIOS IDE settings, maybe it helps someone out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wunderbar98 said:

Started Windows 98 install, already out of memory issues even after reducing to 1 GB physical RAM, will post more later. Tried system.ini modifications without success, maybe R. Loew's RAM limitation patch? Trying to test Windows 98's limits has been a good experience, as most users now have hardware greatly exceeding this stuff.

RLoew's RAM patch is probably a good idea, as I'd imagine it will maximize stability and enable full usage of your RAM if >= !G RAM is installed.

3 hours ago, Wunderbar98 said:

The modified Firefox 45 browsers you mentioned a page back from @roytam1 look like they were coded for Windows XP. I would consider them vanilla if they were specifically modified for vanilla Windows 98, but me thinks XP. Without @siria the link magician i probably couldn't even find the download link for these browsers. If you suspect they were modified for Windows 98 i would be happy to test install. Vanilla Windows 98 is presently stuck in the Firefox v2 era

With BWC's Kernel Ex, Roytam's browsers run quite well on Windows 2000, and are reasonably secure, considering the OS is about 20 years old now.

Without undue effort, it's about as close as the average person can get to having something resembling Windows 98 (2000's UI is very similar to 98 and ME) run a reasonably modern browser.

c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, SeaMonkey is the closest parent to Netscape (more so than Firefox), it even retains some of the old look.

I basically loaded SM 2.49.5 with a custom netscape theme. New Moon 28.8.x also works here and with a Netscape theme as well. New Moon is a fork of firefox/pale moon with some differences between them. I prefer SM because its more closer to a “vanilla” solution even though it only runs thanks to BWC. So far SM was capable of doing everything except banking (I haven’t tried and never will).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wunderbar98 said:

Took a look at the WebOne Proxy link @DosFreak, looks like an interesting project. Unless mistaken, however, the goal appears to make super-retro browsers work in newer Windows OSs. Minimum system requirements appear to be Windows XP, preferably Windows 7. Pretty much the opposite of what i hope to trial, using an old OS to run the newest possible unmodified browser.
https://github.com/atauenis/webone

The modified Firefox 45 browsers you mentioned a page back from @roytam1 look like they were coded for Windows XP. I would consider them vanilla if they were specifically modified for vanilla Windows 98, but me thinks XP. Without @siria the link magician i probably couldn't even find the download link for these browsers. If you suspect they were modified for Windows 98 i would be happy to test install. Vanilla Windows 98 is presently stuck in the Firefox v2 era.

You run the proxy on an XP or above host and then point your old machines to to it.

The modified Firefox browsers I posted were intended for your Qemu test, not on host Windows 98.

They can be found here: https://o.rths.ml/gpc/files1.rt/home.html

 

For 2000 with BlackWingCat Extended Kernel Seamonkey 2.39 and 2.49.5 works

Edited by DosFreak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Bruninho said:

I would never trust an old browser with an old OS to do banking or secure related stuff with my money... 

Although I am curious to know if latest SeaMonkey on Windows 2000 + BWC Kernel Ex is safe enough. Probably the answer is NO.

Do you think it's possible that doing "security related tasks" with an old OS and browser will get more "secure" over time simply sue to the software (old OS and browser) becoming harder to program for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ClassicNick said:

Do you think it's possible that doing "security related tasks" with an old OS and browser will get more "secure" over time simply sue to the software (old OS and browser) becoming harder to program for?

Depends on what tools they use. Original mingw and mingw-w64 compile working executables for 95+ and NT 3.50+ without any extra hoop jumping except for using dwarf and win32 threads. Visual Studio 2017 work for 98+ and NT4+ with some workarounds. For web stuff you shouldn't have javascript run anyway except when needed since other than Roytam1 browsers the browsers are not being patched. You'd think they would target as many systems as possible but in practice in most cases they are taking advantage of a specific vulnerability.

If you were too write malware you would want it to hit as many boxes as possible so use the same APIs that exist in all versions of Windows but mostly they are lazy so usually they end up only working on the most popular operating systems. Security through obscurity shouldn't be used since there are exploit packages that can be bought or acquired with all the vulnerabilities that currently exist.

Edited by DosFreak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DosFreak said:

For web stuff you shouldn't have javascript run anyway except when needed since other than Roytam1 browsers the browsers are not being patched.

Thanks for the input. Personally, I don't care about my security (I don't do anything on my computers that require security), I'm all about getting the best performance on my computers. I've noticed that it isn't usually a huge drain on performance to have JavaScript enabled on Firefox 2.0 era browsers, but it will still lower system resource use. When it comes to the UXP and Tycho based browsers RoyTam1 maintains, I've noticed enabling JavaScript is a horror show on resource use. What I do is open 2 web browsers of my choice, 1 of them is for websites I use that requires JavaScript to work properly (YouTube and possibly a few others), and another browser with JavaScript disabled to handle the rest of the web sites I want to load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all responses. Got the new Windows 98 install running well using artificial 1 GB limitation via SYSTEM.INI. Thanks for the confirmation cc333 on R. Loews memory patch, that it allows using more than 1 GB RAM in Windows 98. Will QEMU test modern browser emulation with 1 GB limitation first, if problematic will try R. Loew's software.

Windows 2000 is great, don't need to sell me, hope to install it someday soon. Only problem is no DOS games, otherwise swell, smooth, polished and very stable. Still own Windows 2000 Pro, wish i had kept on with it and never started with XP.

Thanks for feedback DosFreak, now understand WebOne Proxy better. None of my Windows systems are allowed to network. Newest Windows releases in the house are XP, which won't be replaced once they die due to hardware failure or re-activation hassles. The WebOne Proxy page mentioned XP systems now also have TLS issues. Sad, guess the OS is almost 20 years old now too, why @roytam1 is giving it some love.

Regarding QEMU testing with Windows XP, personally hope to never install XP again, reason for this thread. Setting up a virtual disk image would also be a hassle, prolonged process of installing and setting up XP vs a small single Tiny Core ISO file ready to go. The proposed Tiny Core attempt will hopefully allow using a non-modified browser newer than Firefox 45. All software will also be unrestricted open source instead of Windows XP EULA violations if sharing emulation images.

Thanks also for @roytam1's link, note to others it needs JavaScript to view and access the links. Noticed @roytam1 released a new RetroZilla just yesterday! Exciting, haven't checked it out yet or reviewed a changelog. Too many Windows 98 developments to track :)

https://o.rths.ml/gpc/files1.rt/home.html -> rzbrowser-tls12-20200127.7z

Hi Bruninho. Interesting how everyone computes differently. SeaMonkey is the only browser used for banking here. Left Firefox a long time ago with the major UI changes, sync and pocket. As mentioned before, filtering 'http' in a modern Firefox 'about:config' is enough to turn me off. IIRC Pale Moon dropped support for non-SSE2 capable processors quite some time ago, SeaMonkey stayed with it until only recently. Don't want to use an Apple, Google or Microsoft browser or closed source like Opera. So really not that many choices left when it comes to a full featured modern browser on older hardware.

Me wishes ClassicNick that nothing i did on a computer required security. For me running JavaScript is a no, no, only when absolutely necessary. Older hardware users or those seeking performance should use extensions like NoScript or QuickJava, as JavaScript processing will cripple the CPU. NoScript allows selective JavaScript processing, so running two browsers concurrently will no longer be required. Older browsers also can't handle complex modern JavaScript properly, resulting in processing issues and even browser crashes. More importantly, running JavaScript allows unauthorized code execution, probably a bigger security risk than most other factors. If you want to test NoScript with RetroZilla, download link below.
https://msfn.org/board/topic/177106-running-vanilla-windows-98-in-2020/page/15/?tab=comments#comment-1174709

Link to comment
Share on other sites

= Installing and Running Windows 98 with > 512 MB RAM =

A brief guide on installing and running Windows 98 on systems with > 512 MB RAM, using a bootable Windows 98 CD to install to hard drive. Physically removing RAM modules exceeding 512 MB is not necessary and may not even be possible (ie. 1 GB RAM modules). It is, however, important to temporarily restrict available RAM during the Windows 98 installation process. After installation a memory patch is applied to maximize available RAM. On this test system the steps below resulted in a stable installation and system, YMMV.

Keep RAM in system and load Windows 98 installation CD.

Change BIOS or use keyboard shortcut (eg. F8) to boot from CD.

Select 'Boot computer with CD-ROM support. Use 'fdisk' and 'format' commands as usual to partition and format the hard drive. Ensure the primary DOS partition (C: drive) is marked active.

IMPORTANT! A typical Windows 98 install requires rebooting at least twice. Once after most system files are copied to hard drive and again when configuring hardware. The first reboot is the most crucial so pay attention during the installation process.

IMPORTANT! Install Windows 98 as normal and reboot when directed. Keep the Windows 98 CD in the CD-ROM drive. Upon the first reboot do NOT let the system boot to the normal 'Running Windows for the first time' screen. If the system has > 512 MB RAM it won't happen, instead a black screen with a failed low memory error will be encountered. Allowing the system to boot to the low memory error screen was found to result in an unstable installation. If a low memory error was encountered, it is strongly recommended to abort the installation, reformat the partition and re-start the installation process from the very beginning. Trust me it is time well spent :)

Assuming the first reboot is caught in time, at the beginning of the reboot select 'Boot from CD-ROM'.

Select 'Boot computer with CD-ROM support'.

The system will boot to an A: drive prompt.

Entering ECHO %PATH% confirms C: drive executables are not available.
echo %path%

To use Windows DOS editor 'edit', change to C: drive.
c:

Change to DOS directory where the 'edit' command is located.
cd c:\windows\command

Edit the SYSTEM.INI file using 'edit'.
edit c:\windows\system.ini

Add MaxPhysPage=20000 at the top of the [386enh] section of the SYSTEM.INI file. This will temporarily restrict Windows 98 to 512 MB RAM, it's natural limitation, to allow for a successful installation.
[386enh]
MaxPhysPage=20000

Save the SYSTEM.INI file, close edit.

Press Ctrl-Alt-Delete to reboot.

Resume and complete the Windows 98 installation.

Control Panel -> System will display 512 MB RAM due to the SYSTEM.INI -> MaxPhysPage=20000 entry.

IMPORTANT! After a successful installation, remove the MaxPhysPage=20000 entry from C:\Windows\SYSTEM.INI.

IMPORTANT! Before rebooting, apply R. Loew's patch as directed in it's MANUAL.TXT file. This will activate > 512 MB RAM on the system. Note R. Loew believed Windows 98 is able to access a maximum of 4 GB memory, a combination of physical RAM and any Page File. R. Loew's memory patch can be direct downloaded from below (no JavaScript needed).
https://rloewelectronics.com/distribute/PATCHMEM/PRO7.2/PATCHMEM.ZIP

After applying the memory patch, reboot and review Control Panel -> System for available RAM.

IMPORTANT! Add the following permanent [386Enh] and [vcache] entries to the C:\Windows\SYSTEM.CB file to allow access to graphic safe mode. This is known as 'Usher's Method' and is detailed in this forum.
[386Enh]
EMMExclude=C000-CFFF
MaxPhysPage=20000

[vcache]
MinFileCache=2048
MaxFileCache=65536

Some users experiment with SYSTEM.INI file [386Enh] -> MaxPhysPage and [vcache] -> MaxFileCache entries. Thus far no customizations have been made on this test system.

Edited by Wunderbar98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'SYSTEM.INI 1024 MB RAM Limitation Configuration' post above was good for getting Windows 98 installed, otherwise it would likely have been necessary to remove any physical RAM exceeding 512 MB.

The C:\Windows\SYSTEM.INI 'MaxPhysPage=40000' (~1 GB) entry can be lowered to 20000 (512 MB) or 30000 as desired to limit system RAM to the operating system. Forum members have also played with the SYSTEM.INI 'MaxFileCache' entry, going as high as MaxFileCache=524288.

After playing for a couple days, system performance was disappointing. This included being unable to open a COMMAND.COM window (memory error), being unable to boot into graphic safe mode, general poor and inconsistent system performance.

The resulting installation did not create what i thought were default C:\CONFIG.SYS file entries:
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\HIMEM.SYS
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\EMM386.EXE

And 'Usher's Method', discussed on this forum, was needed to allow booting into graphic safe mode. Modify C:\Windows\SYSTEM.CB file with the following entries. I believe this is by default a read-only file. In a graphic boot, just right-click the file and uncheck 'Read-only' before modifying.

[386Enh]
EMMExclude=C000-CFFF
MaxPhysPage=20000

[vcache]
MinFileCache=2048
MaxFileCache=65536

Memory management was a significant challenge to me already working with DOS. Now working with more RAM than native Windows 98 was designed for has provided additional complication.

Due to poor system performance, R. Loew's patch was applied, relatively simple fix. The system now shows 1.5 GB RAM. The above C:\Windows\SYSTEM.INI entries were then deleted, as they were found to over-ride the patch. Unsure whether the SYSTEM.CB file changes should be reverted, haven't tested, doesn't seem to cause any issue. Thus far the system is running better, smoother, still not rocket fast as expected though but it's a fresh install without a lot of tweaks.

For anyone interested, R. Loew's patch was linked in the post above and there is lots of memory discussion linked in this thread:
https://msfn.org/board/topic/118097-day-to-day-running-win-9xme-with-more-than-1-gib-ram/

I've read members happily using Windows 98 with a 2.66 GHz Pentium 4. If i understand correctly, R. Loew, bless his soul, thought Windows 98 could access a maximum of 4 GB memory. For example, 3 GB RAM plus a 1 GB Page File. Anyway lots of information in the link above if someone wants to spend all day reading about Windows 98 memory issues.

Edited by Wunderbar98
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...