Windows 98/se/me Ram Limitation Patch

Posted By admin On 15.10.19

Windows 98/se/me Ram Limitation Patch 2016
Windows 98/se/me Ram Limitation Patch 3
Windows 98 Ram Limit

I had found Mr Loew's patch to enable 48 bit LBA in Windows 98 but I had a suspicion that Mr Loew was not a person I would want anything to do with. Mr Loew's hostile posts here affirm my suspicion and I anxiously await an independant solution from a more amicable author. I eventually solved the 48 bit LBA problem in my own crude way. All I did was to remove ESDI506.PDR from IOSUBSYS which puts C: into compatibility mode paging then 48 bit LBA support gets inherited from the BIOS. The performance is low but I get long file name support on 48 bit LBA drives. I wasn't trying to win any speed races, I just wanted the ability to move, rename, and perform minimal data recovery on big FAT32 drives from Windows 98.USB drives are not limited by Windows 9x to 137GB. 137GB drives will not function properly in in older non 48 bit LBA compatible enclosures.

Enclosures that are 48 bit LBA compatible are usually labeled as compatible with the largest shipping drive size at the time the advertizing is printed, some size far above 137GB.48 bit LBA detection has not been perfected between drive manufacturers and chipsets. In rare cases, the enclosure or motherboard chipset will fail to detect more than 137GB.

When this occurs you'll expect to see some folders and files scrambled. Any use of SCANDISK or AUTOCHK or CHKDSK in this condition will promptly trash much data. This has been noted with:Western Digital PATA + ALI EnclosureWestern Digital PATA + VIA based MotherboardIn Windows 2000 & XP, the big drive patch solves this problem. If the motherboard fails to detect 137GB, the 2K/XP PATA IDE driver will do so instead. AUTOCHK runs after the IDE driver detects 48 bit LBA. Misbehaving external drive enclosures need to be powered off and on until 48 bit LBA gets detected properly. I enable the big drive patch on ALL systems so I no longer see this problem in motherboard chipsets.

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00HKEYLOCALMACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetServicesatapiParameters'EnableBigLba'=dword:00000001Rumor has it that XP SP2 slipstream is the first Windows installer that is 48 bit LBA ready. You may install a lower OS as long as the drive is empty so that the initial CHKDSK has no files above 137GB to destroy and all the install files are certain to show up below 137GB until the big drive patch can be enabled after which your system will function properly no matter where most files are placed. This also means that you can't reinstall a lower OS on a partly filled drive because the risk is too great that files will be allocated above 137GB during the install. Due to much data loss, I have found it best to stick with 120GB or less drives for booting.

Windows 98/SE/ME RAM Limitation Patch Menembus 512MB dari OS Windows 98, SE dan ME Sony Vegas Pro 8 Editing audio dan video Bandwidth Controller Membagi trafik data pada jaringan computer MozBackup Membackup data dari browser Firefox Ashampoo Music Studio Ripper audioCD, konversi MP3 dengan Variable Bitrate IncrediMail. Aug 18, 2013 Very interesting topic and video, thank you for sharing this YouTube video WinPC. It is Starting up faster with Win386.swp file stored on RAM disk with 2 GB of virtual memory available to Windows 98, he used HimemX to achieve this virtual memory size as well, it's great to see this achievement with Windows 98.

Installers will not damage 137GB data drives as long as you don't try to install to them. Windows 2000 SP4 slipstream is NOT 48 bit LBA ready.If the Win98 Unofficial SP2 team is able to come up with a 48 bit LBA ESDI driver, it will need to be integrated into the CAB files to allow Windows 98 to be installed to 137GB drives. It's not a feature I require but it would make Windows 98 the second OS that will install to 137GB drives. Has eny one used the udma driver for dos and disable the windows one to solves this problem '137gb HDD barrier'??' Please note that UDMA2 and all similar variants have been replaced by the newer XDMA:XDMA DOS UATA/UDMA Hard Disk Driver v1.02 16-bit TSR for MS-DOS 5/6/7/8 +Windows 3.1x/9x/ME allows up to 4 UATA/UDMA Hard Disks to run at full speed innative DOS:XDMA 1.02 30 KB:XDMA works ONLY with UATA/UDMA Hard Disks connected to motherboard built-inUATA/UDMA controllers, NOT to 3rd party/add-on/proprietary controllers!XDMA.SYS takes 1 KB of upper DOS RAM if loaded with DEVICEHIGH in CONFIG.SYS(upper memory manager required in CONFIG.SYS).

I have bought that at Maplin's store the other day.Though I have paid £29.99 for it, I see it is way cheaper on the Net. Just £12.I'll be telling you soon (sometimes within the next couple of weeks) whether I can boot and use my 200 GB Drive C to its full capacity with it.I'll have to force myself thouroughly reading the doc first. Especially about the BIOS as I don't know yet how the BIOS will want to boot the computer from a drive plugged on that card (if it can at all).Edit: Well I still haven't tried to install that card. Edited September 18, 2005 by eidenk. Just a comment:i search at this time to run MSDOS with WIN98 not running with big drives 128 / 137 Goon IDE ports or SiliconImage, HightPOint, Promise &.

That is similar. no problem with some recent computers with & WIN2000 or WINXP & Win98 running normal with good drivers( note: with WIN98 on failure mode or MSDOS big problem exist.: dir /s - sectors not found )i am a little sorry because i use always old MSDOS softwares and i have sure problems with big drivesalso i can install a special machine with the limitation jumper on the drives but. Why not the full capacity?-informations: with FreeDos only ( not Win98 compatible!! ) no no no no no problemhave you informations for make a little drivers ( as functionnality on FreeDos kernel ) for using MSDOS & or WIN98 failure mode without problem?Pierre Edited December 9, 2005 by F5BJR. I had to say this. This Rudolph R.

Loew has spammed and hit every techie and support board out there. Its usually one or two posts about his patch, and a obligatory link to his site where it can be purchased.

I have never seen such shameless self promotion. Its not $10, either. Boot manager is additional $5, which brings up to $15.

For that money you could buy a ATA133 PCI IDE controller card. Which would solve any problems with device drivers, lack of BIOS support, and in a general way improve your system performance. No really, check out pricewatch.com, controller cards going for around $15 with free shipping.I bet Petr talking about creating a free patch got him antsy. Nice scare tactics. I found the part about copyright issues particularly hilarious.

If any of the information you posted was obtained by examining my code, or a patched ESDI506.PDR file, it could be considered an illegal disclosure of trade secrets. In addition, anyone who uses any such trade secrets to write Software could be found to be in violation of my Copyright even if they personally have not examined my Software.I just wonder how many copyright laws 'dear' Rudolph R. Loew broke, while working on his little hack.

Heck, what about the patch as is? He's making profit from a hacked piece of software. One thing industry has demonstrated in the past is that they come down hard on profiteers. You make any money, in any way, from their product, you get hit.I am a reverse-engineer, and as such I find this matter interesting. Where I am, there are laws.against.

the prohibition of reverse-engineering, copyright is not really enforced at all, and as such once I have some time I'll be sure to take a look at Loew's solution. It's probably not going to be too interesting, as I already know what to expect.

32-bit internal LBA getting padded with an extra 2 bytes - 48-bit LBA and existing commands - extended commands. Just a comment:i search at this time to run MSDOS with WIN98 not running with big drives 128 / 137 Goon IDE ports or SiliconImage, HightPOint, Promise &.

) no no no no no problemhave you informations for make a little drivers ( as functionnality on FreeDos kernel ) for using MSDOS & or WIN98 failure mode without problem?PierreI have used a 400GB Hitachi SATA disk with realmode dos 7.1(98se) and have not found any corrupt files. 290GB of the disk is used. I don't run scandisk and replaced it with chkdsk from the latest rom-dos (2005 version). I have used a 400GB Hitachi SATA disk with realmode dos 7.1(98se) and have not found any corrupt files.

290GB of the disk is used. I don't run scandisk and replaced it with chkdsk from the latest rom-dos (2005 version).DOS 7.10 accesses the disk using the BIOS Int13x interface which uses 48-bit LBAs, but internally it uses 32-bit sector numbers. It should be good for disks up to 2 terabytes, the limit of FAT32.The problem is with the Windows pmode driver directly accessing the hardware and only using the 28-bit LBA commands to the drive, truncating the upper 4 bits off the internal linear sector number.I suppose if you run in the 'compatibility mode' filesystem (which involves disk access via BIOS) it should be alright. It would take much time anyway.

I have to find some easy way how to test what sector was.really. read/written because of possible sector wrapping or shifting.PetrMaybe some fellow coder here could make a simple testing utility which performs the following procedures:1. Write to each sector on the drive its LBA number, starting from LBA sector 0 til the end of the drive.2. Read each sector and compare value stored in it with the actual LBA value used to adress it (starting from LBA 0 till the last sector)3. If wrapping is detected (adress and stored value for any sector are not equal), repeat 1. But in the range from LBA 0 to the 1st few wrapped sectors ( this is to detect double/triple/. Wrappings on very large drives )Of course, using such a program will erase all data on the drive, but should be very usefull for extended compability testing.

It would take much time anyway. I have to find some easy way how to test what sector was.really. read/written because of possible sector wrapping or shifting.PetrMaybe some fellow coder here could make a simple testing utility which performs the following procedures:1.

Write to each sector on the drive its LBA number, starting from LBA sector 0 til the end of the drive.2. Read each sector and compare value stored in it with the actual LBA value used to adress it (starting from LBA 0 till the last sector)3.

If wrapping is detected (adress and stored value for any sector are not equal), repeat 1. But in the range from LBA 0 to the 1st few wrapped sectors ( this is to detect double/triple/.

Wrappings on very large drives )Of course, using such a program will erase all data on the drive, but should be very usefull for extended compability testingWhich interface do you suggest for doing this? Direct hardware access?

BIOS int13ext? DOS int25/26? ESDI506.PDR (protectedmode) driver calls? A good idea, but how to implement it is the question.

Which interface do you suggest for doing this? Direct hardware access? BIOS int13ext? DOS int25/26? ESDI506.PDR (protectedmode) driver calls? A good idea, but how to implement it is the question.Well, using all interfaces you mentioned can test compability of different PC/OS partsWhat i mean:use direct hardware access to test the HDD controller;then use BIOS INT13ex to test if BIOS itself supports properly LBA48;then try DOS interfaces to test DOS-level compability;and last, use Windows interface to test the actual drivers currently installed on your beloved OSbtw.

Splitting this to few programs depending on the interface which each use would be fine too, if required.P.S. I have very little experience coding on x86 platform, so correct me if I'm wrong ( almost all of my coding experience is on Apple 2 clones ).

I think, iam going try windows xp on the first place. And then see which games couldnt work probably on XP. Maybe there is nothing wrong to using winxp instead.Win98SE would be struggeling to let a better AGP card working because of non support in drivers.(i really like to see a Pixel shader 3.0 working in this system) Also that 137GB drive limit isnt very hopefull.win98se has also that 1GB memory bug.My decissions will be made if windows xp would be a better candidate for my build or not. I know that windows xp had also had a LBA-48 bug. But luckly it would be solved in SP1 / SP2.What i really dont like is to mount a seperate SATA / IDE PCI controller, if known that the board also have controller ports, and actually needs to give up one PCI i really cant miss at all.Does anybody knows if the MSI K7N2 Delta 2 LSR / FSR would have support of LBA-48 on there controllers?Forget about the previously computer setups i haved mentioned.My setup would like this:It would still be socket 462 though.AMD AthlonXP 2600+ (Thoroughbred-B, AXDA2600DKV3C) 266Mhz FSB. 2133Mhz ( why i choose this one, because it was the max for my older Soltek SL75KAV-X motherboard)2X512MB (maybe 2x 256MB) PC3200 DDR400 ram.For now an ASUS Geforce 4 TI 4x AGP 128MB (also thought on a Geforce FX card)2x Voodoo 2 SLI.for glide only)Creative SB LIVE 5.1 (skip it later for an other card) I had this card from on other old computer.Iam guessing to go for 1 TB sata harddisk (installation WinXP only)If iam go with dualboot windows 98se, that using a seperate 120GB harddisk for an single partition), but i hope to use an 250GB PATA instead for dual partitions of 125GB.

)dont know if windows 98 se would split a 250GB harddisk up to two partitions. Robin4 wrote:I think, iam going try windows xp on the first place.

And then see which games couldnt work probably on XP. Maybe there is nothing wrong to using winxp instead.Win98SE would be struggeling to let a better AGP card working because of non support in drivers.(i really like to see a Pixel shader 3.0 working in this system) Also that 137GB drive limit isnt very hopefull.win98se has also that 1GB memory bug.My decissions will be made if windows xp would be a better candidate for my build or not. I know that windows xp had also had a LBA-48 bug. But luckly it would be solved in SP1 / SP2.What i really dont like is to mount a seperate SATA / IDE PCI controller, if known that the board also have controller ports, and actually needs to give up one PCI i really cant miss at all.Does anybody knows if the MSI K7N2 Delta 2 LSR / FSR would have support of LBA-48 on there controllers?Forget about the previously computer setups i haved mentioned.My setup would like this:It would still be socket 462 though.AMD AthlonXP 2600+ (Thoroughbred-B, AXDA2600DKV3C) 266Mhz FSB. 2133Mhz ( why i choose this one, because it was the max for my older Soltek SL75KAV-X motherboard)2X512MB (maybe 2x 256MB) PC3200 DDR400 ram.For now an ASUS Geforce 4 TI 4x AGP 128MB (also thought on a Geforce FX card)2x Voodoo 2 SLI.for glide only)Creative SB LIVE 5.1 (skip it later for an other card) I had this card from on other old computer.Iam guessing to go for 1 TB sata harddisk (installation WinXP only)If iam go with dualboot windows 98se, that using a seperate 120GB harddisk for an single partition), but i hope to use an 250GB PATA instead for dual partitions of 125GB. )dont know if windows 98 se would split a 250GB harddisk up to two partitions.With Windows XP I always try to get at least 1 gig of RAM in the system.

Makes it all the more enjoyable imo.I have used 512MB in the past (I think I even went lower) and it ran.but it wasn't particularly fast. Yes i ment Windows ME `upgrade`.

I never had played with ME before. So i really want to give it a go and see what happens.So i litterly could have some help about those patches, service packs, and others have to installed so get windows ME working without much hassle. Robin4 wrote:Yes i ment Windows ME `upgrade`.

I want to know which version is the most stable.I think iam going to use the english version, because there are more patches and fixes for the english version.Fixes are more difficult to find for the dutch version.I also like the know how to get that OS stable as possible?? Which Service packs (official / not official) do i have to install?Which other fixes could be highly recommended? I never had played with ME before. So i really want to give it a go and see what happens.So i litterly could have some help about those patches, service packs, and others have to installed so get windows ME working without much hassle.It's kinda late here now, I have a ZIP disk or USB stick which I always use to quickly tweak ME on any new build. I also once did a Windows update with the Dutch Windows ME and have all the updates (or at least the updates that were available from Microsoft at the time) stored somewhere.

Problem for me was to find a place to upload them where it doesn't get deleted after a while. If you're going with 1GB of RAM (which will be needed if you want PS3.0 games), you should go with Windows XP.

My understanding is that neither 98 nor ME will be out-of-the-box stable with 512MB for various reasons. I don't know if there are 3rd-party hacks/patches to correct or address that issue. By contrast, XP will install and start right up with 1GB of RAM. I personally always have found XP to be much more stable than 98SE (I have never owned an ME machine; have used them in the past with mixed results, but who knows how they were maintained).Now about Shader 3.0 - that's GeForce 6800 or Radeon X1800 or higher (Radeon X800 doesn't support it). The GeForce 6800 isn't a perfect solution for Shader 3.0 either; it won't perform very well (if at all) trying to do things like HDR + AA at once. The 7800 fixes those problems, but there are few AGP boards available (7800GS comes to mind, if you can find one).

However, before we get ahead of ourselves, consider what kinds of games actually require Shader 3.0 - most of them will not run on the AthlonXP (or will run terribly) because of its lack of SSE2/3, and generally low performance (relatively speaking that is). My advice would be to stick with the GeForce 4 Ti if you already have it, because it will handle DirectX 8 very well. GeForce FX will be an improvement in some respects, but not in all - go with the higher-tier FX cards if you go that route (5700/5800/5900). Radeon 9700/9800 or GeForce 6600/6800 would be much better choices if you want to play Shader 2.0 DirectX 9 games (like Half-Life 2 for example).Finally, on the integrated audio - while integrated audio for.most. boards from the early 2000s wasn't great, if you have a Socket A board with an nForce and SoundStorm, the onboard audio can be pretty great. More from Wikipedia: The MSI you mentioned appears to have the hardware for this, and it'd probably be worth looking at unless you already have a nifty PCI card in the wings.l33t Posts: 2248 Joined: 2014-1-24 @ 11:47.

Obobskivich wrote:If you're going with 1GB of RAM (which will be needed if you want PS3.0 games), you should go with Windows XP. My understanding is that neither 98 nor ME will be out-of-the-box stable with 512MB for various reasons.

I don't know if there are 3rd-party hacks/patches to correct or address that issue. By contrast, XP will install and start right up with 1GB of RAM. I personally always have found XP to be much more stable than 98SE (I have never owned an ME machine; have used them in the past with mixed results, but who knows how they were maintained).Now about Shader 3.0 - that's GeForce 6800 or Radeon X1800 or higher (Radeon X800 doesn't support it). The GeForce 6800 isn't a perfect solution for Shader 3.0 either; it won't perform very well (if at all) trying to do things likeat once. The 7800 fixes those problems, but there are few AGP boards available (7800GS comes to mind, if you can find one).

GeForce FX will be an improvement in some respects, but not in all - go with the higher-tier FX cards if you go that route (5700/5800/5900). Radeon 9700/9800 or GeForce 6600/6800 would be much better choices if you want to play Shader 2.0 DirectX 9 games (like Half-Life 2 for example).Finally, on the integrated audio - while integrated audio for.most. boards from the early 2000s wasn't great, if you have a Socket A board with an nForce and SoundStorm, the onboard audio can be pretty great. More from Wikipedia: The MSI you mentioned appears to have the hardware for this, and it'd probably be worth looking at unless you already have a nifty PCI card in the wings.If i want also run windows xp then i think 1GB memory should be highly recommended!

I also think its stupid if you want to install XP SP1 only! You also missed the most important security fixes. I know XP wouldnt be that secure either, because some those security problems arent fixed by the way. But its more secured by running sp3. Without SP2 you also missed the LBA-48 harddisk size fix and some other fixes you really dont want to miss.

Iam also looked at the prices for the tualatin processors, but iam not going to pay 30 dollars for that stupid `cheap and oldest`processor that people arent using anymore do their internet tasks.Socket A processors are much cheaper to get, only 9 euros (cheap as is an very big stock to buy on ebay or so) And its a better idea to get the almost latest period socket A system.And socket a system is much easier to use watercooling if you want. (that watercooling is just to make the system more special) Rebuilding an Socket A system is nice only, but really nothing special / boring when using it only on air)The first period socket A processors really gets though on running windows xp with all its updates! And using more ram is always welcome on those machines. Because with more windows fixes and upgrade the system just consume more resources, specially memory.Why i taking these parts? Because of there looks, onboard intergrated NIC, price of the components(and i want to do somthing special with it), sata on the board ect.(also keep in mind that every fixes and patches could slow down a slower version of socket A system).

A first period socket A system would be slow as hell if everything is configured well. For me Windows 98 / ME isnt the main operating system as needed. But i should definitely run it if i have some compatible issues with older games that only run on windows 98 se / MEI know the time of the OS between Win 98 se and WinXP isnt perfect either (me sucked and win2000 was more designed for company use), but i really want to make a compatible on both osses if this its possible (i know there are memory and harddisk size fixes for windows 98se.) ( if it could not out-of-the-box, then iam just looking for the middle way)So if this would help me on my journey i will buy that software if that could solve the whole big problem here. I really doesnt care about running faster games on that computer till half-life 2 period. I also have a S775 QX9650 system that can take the tasks of the faster games and better graphics support. Why using 2 systems? Its just really hard to make one system that can do all.1.

If you want to run win98 se only. That shouldnt be a problem.

But dual boot, you have toAlso why iam buying an 6800 GT / Ultra card instead of using GF4 TI or GF FX. The best spot is the GF FX, but that wasnt the fastest serie graphics what nvidia had released that day.GF4 TI is very nice, but need to care both system can use the same amount of memory and graphics card.2. If you want to make a first period win xp box, you could get in problems that some win98se games wont run anymore (also used those tweaks)3. If tou want to make a latest windows xp box, the system is already to slow ect ect. So there if no perfect match here.At my vision i do:1 One system that can do the latest win98se period (if these games all run fine on xp, then i leave it that why, otherwise i need to make it win98se compatible too)2.

Second system that will to the latest windows xp period and the whole win 7 32-bit period (32-bit only machine)1. The availability isnt so good.2. GF4 TI cards where known of there bad GPU coolers. Most of them wherent really lived long. Good replacements are hard to find (most 3rd party cooler arent that high quality or just make more noises)3.

The noise of those GPU coolers (or the bearings went out, or design of the fan is just horrible.) These cooler always inflate with dust.4. The prices what you pay now is just horrible.5. I always can have a little bit more speed from the VGA card.I really like the 6800 series better.1. Its just faster then the previous nvidia series.2. These cards are much easier the watercool (thats already in my plans. That i want to preform)3. PS 3.0 is just a nice gimmick too.

( i know back in the days playing RTCW on a 6800LE) ( i like this series very well, because it was the first cards with PS 3.0 support. And it was also the beste series back then)4. HDR + AA i really dont care at all, GF4 TI didnt had also things that newer cards had) ( i also have another faster system here, so can dual boot both system to cover that whole period once)5. I guess 7800GS doesnt seems to have offical windows 98 support ( if i want to use that graphics card on that os) And also my waterblock doesnt fitt on that card.)So for my opinion the 6800 series would be a better deal for me.Does any body knows whats the sweet spot of hard drive size running on windows xp (and which max does it support) Iam thinking of using an SATA 500GB harddisk to run Winxp SP3 on. And taking a 120GB drive IDE if i want to make the system dualbooting. With each update to this thread, it appears as though this system is becoming less and less of a retro build and more and more of a modern PC. But perhaps I'm just getting old feeling that an XP system is 'pretty much a modern PC'.

Moving from a sub 1GHz Athlon to an Athlon XP totally changes what games this build will be suited to run. I get a feeling that it's the joy of building that is the primary focus of this system rather than any intent of playing specific games.Decide which games you wanna play on a system. Figure out what hardware is needed to run those games in the best possible way, without needing to go overkill. Then you'll know what system you'll need to build.Nothing wrong with building for the joy of building ofc, but this build is moving into 'just another PC' territory rather than retro imho.I wish you good luck all the same though.

LunarG wrote:With each update to this thread, it appears as though this system is becoming less and less of a retro build and more and more of a modern PC. But perhaps I'm just getting old feeling that an XP system is 'pretty much a modern PC'. Moving from a sub 1GHz Athlon to an Athlon XP totally changes what games this build will be suited to run. I get a feeling that it's the joy of building that is the primary focus of this system rather than any intent of playing specific games.Decide which games you wanna play on a system. Figure out what hardware is needed to run those games in the best possible way, without needing to go overkill. Then you'll know what system you'll need to build.Nothing wrong with building for the joy of building ofc, but this build is moving into 'just another PC' territory rather than retro imho.I wish you good luck all the same thoughThere was an entire topic about what is retro and wat isn't and opinions differed.Obviously what is retro tomorrow may not yet be retro today.

But with the problem of modern rigs not being able to cope with DX9 games very well anymore, a good DX9 computer may soon be retro already.But anyway, I could dig up that topic if you want, could be an interesting read for you? I didn't mean to come across as offensive, it was just a continuing trend, that the build kept being upgraded and upgraded through the whole thread, until it isn't even the same 'class' of system as it started out as.

As I said, I have no problem with building for the joy of building. It's fun to play around with older hardware, and it's a good thing that people still see the value in the hardware that most people see see as obsolete.I only intended to comment on what I saw as a slightly funny observation, not disrespect the OP. It it came across as such, then I do apologize.I have also noticed while going to uni with people 10+ years younger than me, that what I remember as being 'pretty recent' is to them 'old as heck', so clearly people have different points of reference. LunarG wrote:With each update to this thread, it appears as though this system is becoming less and less of a retro build and more and more of a modern PC.

But perhaps I'm just getting old feeling that an XP system is 'pretty much a modern PC'. Moving from a sub 1GHz Athlon to an Athlon XP totally changes what games this build will be suited to run. I get a feeling that it's the joy of building that is the primary focus of this system rather than any intent of playing specific games.Decide which games you wanna play on a system.

Figure out what hardware is needed to run those games in the best possible way, without needing to go overkill. Then you'll know what system you'll need to build.Nothing wrong with building for the joy of building ofc, but this build is moving into 'just another PC' territory rather than retro imho.I wish you good luck all the same thoughI really cant see why an socket 462 is `a modern pc` in your eyes. Socket 462 is outdate few years ago. My main rig computer is a Intel 2500K sandy bridge, its a whole 64-bit machine. It cant run 16-bits software anymore.Perhaps it could run 32-bit software. My main goal was to build the fastest win98 se machine.

But i had to made some choices about the hardware. Keep in mind that S478 boards and that period hardware isnt easy to find anymore. Because people dont see any use in this stuff anymore. They also know that there arent much people who will buy this period hardware.

So they just toss it away, or give it to recycle centers. The cleaning of this hardware goes really fast. Look on second hand sites.I tried it in my neighborhood, but cant really find anything for a decent price. The pentium III tualatin would be the best bet. But if you know that those motherboards are very limited now, and havent much choice. So i thought about to go for the S462 FSB266 boards as first place.

But these boards are become rare as well.These board where also familiar with the bad capacitor plague.I also had to mentioned that if you then looking for newer FSB 333 boards that these boards only have 5 pci slots in the new board designs. If i want to install:1. Graphics card (in AGP slot) (some cards where already occupy two full slot brackets.2. 2X voodoo 2 SLI4. PCI soundcard5. Maybe a IDE / SATA controller card.Then you might already come in trouble with expansion slots.

I wanted to use the Athlon XP 2600 + 266FSB because i had this processor bought already, but want to use it again in my new build.( i like in general)I choose this processor because i dont wanted to use the palamino one, because these version can became very hot. ( my brother had one back in the days, that one was very hard to cool down.)And also AMD Socket A/462 thunderbird 1400mhz arent easy to find. ( so next choice would be the palamino, but as i said these running to hot in my opinion)This 2600+ was only a few euros.

(and really can buy more for cheap if i want)I also wanted to have a system like no slower then a Tualatin 1400mhz. Because i dont want to come in problems because the system might be getting to slow after all. (finding an 1400mhz thunderbird is not easy in 2014 anyways)But my main problem was more because i dont want to spend to high prices on these old hardware. So i bought just the parts i got them cheap as possible.

And its is not easy to find the parts that i need for lesser money. So i though about the problem of those almost overfilled pci slots. I thought, shouldnt it be easy to find a board with NIC intergrated. So thats i went to these MSI K7N2 motherboards.The other nice gimmick was that this was the first socket that was possible to watercool it. I also could take the tualatin, but then you need a special maded board for it.

And these boards are hard to find now.Now because iam in this position, iam thinking to make this system dual boot. On one disk i want to install windows 98 se or ME (iam not sure about that), and second disk i thinking of using XP. But iam not out on this already to, because of the bugs thats still are in XP ( security issues)The other benefit of the board i have chosen, its also having native SATA on board. Older board doesnt. I prefer to using onboard solutions instead of seperate add-on cards that mosly doesnt work very great.I know windows 98 doesnt support sata, but always can use it in legacy IDE mode, or using Win98 on IDE disk and using XP on sata disk. And dont forget installing SP3 XP loads the system more heavily. So to compensate that, a faster system is more ideal.

With service packs I just orient myself according to dates and timelines. Same goes for driver versions and things like that.SP3 is serious bloat and needs 4GB for many games to run properly.Whereas with SP1 I had a P4 with 1 or 2 GB and that was enough.Small drives isn't a problem IMO. Worst case put the 32GB limit on a current Seagate SATA and you're set.If you study the driver releases it usually mentions game fixes. A driver that's releases 6 months to 1 year after a game should do the trick and you should have zero issues.GOG.com games are DRM free, so you don't need to be online. I don't know what the deal is with Steam. Do you just need a good firewall and that's it, as long as you don't surf the internet?

I was also planned to using steam on that system. But i think i can forget that now, and probably i better can install it on the next system that would get next to this one. I was also planned to install XP on that faster system too, but i think i can leave it on windows 7 32-bit version now.

On the other hand thinking of installed win98 se only on this system, but i know i can get in troubles trying running some winxp games on windows 7. Ill think that there are a lot games who whouldnt run actually or having compatibillity problems.Do you guys are going online when updating drivers / windows?

I dont have had any experience with making slipstream cds, so mostly iam a littlebit affraid that it just wouldnt work as i want. And i really dont know how it works too. If you saying that i need 4GB for running games on SP3, yeah then better leave it to SP2 only.If i only need to online, that should be only for updating (large files), dont think i have a better way to do this. Robin4 wrote:I was also planned to using steam on that system.

But i think i can forget that now, and probably i better can install it on the next system that would get next to this one. I was also planned to install XP on that faster system too, but i think i can leave it on windows 7 32-bit version now. On the other hand thinking of installed win98 se only on this system, but i know i can get in troubles trying running some winxp games on windows 7. Ill think that there are a lot games who whouldnt run actually or having compatibillity problems.Do you guys are going online when updating drivers / windows? I dont have had any experience with making slipstream cds, so mostly iam a littlebit affraid that it just wouldnt work as i want. And i really dont know how it works too. If you saying that i need 4GB for running games on SP3, yeah then better leave it to SP2 only.If i only need to online, that should be only for updating (large files), dont think i have a better way to do this.I can tell you a little bit about slipstreaming and how I go about doing it.I started out with just slipstreaming SP3 onto XP (this is really easy with NLite).

Windows 98/se/me Ram Limitation Patch 2016

Later I made several XP disks with SP3 and largely unattended (meaning most standard options like what timezone you live in are automatically entered). You can also make it use a product key automatically if you want it to (you still have to activate XP afterwards though).If you use NLite (there are other slipstreaming programs but I haven't tried any of those yet) then it's supposed to be important that the host OS is the same OS as the OS you want to slipstream.

Windows 98/se/me Ram Limitation Patch 3

So if I want to slipstream an XP disk, I use a computer that has XP on it.This is kinda how it works (from top of my memory, I haven't slipstreamed in a while now).I take some random XP disk I have (there are basically three of them, more if you count Royalty oem disks like Fujitsu Siemens) and copy all the files on the CDROM in one work directory. I also have the standalone XP SP3 (not the ISO one).NLite reminds me a bit of msbatch98 btw.There was a guide on msfn.org on using NLite, I'm not sure if it's still there anymore, but it's mostly a matter of selecting what you want it to do and NLite will do it for you.After NLite has finished, I create a bootable ISO using the modified XP files in the work directory and then test the newly made ISO if it works using Virtual PC 2004 (I'm not sure if VPC 2007 will work on XP so I used 2004 instead).

If it doesn't work, then at least you didn't burn a CDROM for nothing.I did figure out that the more different things you let NLite do, the bigger the chance that something messes up, that's why I very much recommend you first use VPC to test your new ISO as this will save you time, CDROMs and frustration in the long run. LunarG wrote:With each update to this thread, it appears as though this system is becoming less and less of a retro build and more and more of a modern PC. But perhaps I'm just getting old feeling that an XP system is 'pretty much a modern PC'. Moving from a sub 1GHz Athlon to an Athlon XP totally changes what games this build will be suited to run.

I get a feeling that it's the joy of building that is the primary focus of this system rather than any intent of playing specific games.Decide which games you wanna play on a system. Figure out what hardware is needed to run those games in the best possible way, without needing to go overkill. Then you'll know what system you'll need to build.Nothing wrong with building for the joy of building ofc, but this build is moving into 'just another PC' territory rather than retro imho.I wish you good luck all the same thoughIT IS! XP can't run a ton of games. At least 98 has DOS games with kernel ex some XP app computability.

Windows 98 Ram Limit

98 also unofficial video drivers and stability patches for over 512mb of ram. Hell install 256mb and install and dual boot OSes long enough to patch them and then install 1gb of ram. Robin4 wrote:I really cant see why an socket 462 is `a modern pc` in your eyes.

Socket 462 is outdate few years ago. My main rig computer is a Intel 2500K sandy bridge, its a whole 64-bit machine. It cant run 16-bits software anymore.Perhaps it could run 32-bit software.I know this is probably off-topic but I just wanted to comment that sandy bridge chips -CAN- run some limited 16-bit software, it's the operating system that you have on it that is the limiting factor. Windows 7 (or windows 8 ) 64-bit, can only run 64-bit and 32-bit coded software.HOWEVER- if you were to install windows 7 (I don't know about 8?) 32-bit version, you could then run some old 16-bit programs. My source for this: I own a sandy-bridge based laptop, and since it only has 3 GB ram on it, I chose to load it with Win7 32-bit. And I popped in a CD-ROM with some old windows 3.11 pinball game, and it installed, and ran and played just fine. No problems, other than the 'system test' suite crashed on running, but I just installed it without running the test program and then the game runs just fine.So, these chips can run 16-bit code just fine.What we need is a VM software that supports full 3d acceleration for 98.

It could even make some money. Even cooler if supported all the things the the video cards mention the VOGONS wiki do/have.Oldbie Posts: 1109 Joined: 2007-2-04 @ 19:48 Location: USA, MO.