Why does Windows 98/ME crash if you start doing too many things at once?

[Nocturnal]

Like if you open up IE and then try to go to the control panel or start up another program everything just goes insane and then you get a nice blue screen or the system just hangs until you ctrl alt del or restart the computer.

Is there a specific reason why Windows 98/ME does this? How can I prevent it from happening?

 

[mikecel79]

Is there a specific reason why Windows 98/ME does this? How can I prevent it from happening?

Switch to a new OS. Windows 2000 and XP are far more stable than Win9x will ever be.

Something as simple as using IE and opening the Control Panel should not crash the machine (even Win 9x) so if your machine is doing that chances are it's some other software issue.

 

[delroy]

how much memory do you have in the ME machine?

 

[thegorx]

or configuration problem
memory problem or hard drive problem

but software might be the first place to start, it's not so much of what you start running as what is running that you didn't want to have running

 

[The Linuxator]

the answer can be simply because win9x mostly utilizes 16-bit code instead of the mainstream 32-bit code , and as you know using 16-bit code can be a hurdle in the face of the simplest attempts of multitasking , and maybe thats why your system tends to freeze alot.

 

[casper114]

BECAUSE IT'S A POS OS

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
Like if you open up IE and then try to go to the control panel or start up another program everything just goes insane and then you get a nice blue screen or the system just hangs until you ctrl alt del or restart the computer.

Is there a specific reason why Windows 98/ME does this? How can I prevent it from happening?

The Linuxator said it best. ANother words, the answer to that question is simple. Windows 98/ME flat out suck and are pieces of junk when it comes to multi tasking and 32-bit computing. Please don't tell me you expect to be able to run such a POS OS like Windows 98/ME on the system listed in your sig.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: casper114
BECAUSE IT'S A POS OS

AMEN!!

 

[Phoenix86]

W9x never had good memory handeling, it's the most known "bug/issue" with that line. Use 2K or XP.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
the answer can be simply because win9x mostly utilizes 16-bit code instead of the mainstream 32-bit code , and as you know using 16-bit code can be a hurdle in the face of the simplest attempts of multitasking , and maybe thats why your system tends to freeze alot.

There wasn't all that much 16-bit code in Win95 to begin with. As I recall, GDI and USER remained 16-bit to provide maximal backward compatibility with 16-bit Windows apps. An interesting tidbit: Windows 3.11 served as a sort of demo for Win95 technology and even contained a 32-bit disk controller device driver.

But Win95 supports 16-bit device drivers and certain areas aren't protected. Atleast the first 1088KB address space is left largely unprotected. E.g. 16-bit apps can directly modify the interrupt vector table (handily located at the first 1K) and it can mess with the interrupt controller.

Try running DEBUG from the command line, and try the following commands:
- o 21, ff
- f 0:0 L ffff 00
the first should effectively disable all interrupts (port 20 was EOI, and 21 the interrupt controller, right? I keep mixing them up), thereby freezing your computer, and the second should mess up the interrupt vector table. Under Windows Toystation you'll get fireworks, but under a real OS only the current VM will be affected (just alt-tab and you'll be back in business).

Multitasking 16-bit code isn't hard. Windows NT can run several 16-bit apps simultaneously just fine. But in Win95 they kept GDI unchanged and all code that does anything graphical will have to pass through a part of the OS that is only executing in a single thread. (Windows NT prior to NT4 had problems multitasking graphic-intensive apps as well, despite running off a pure 32-bit codebase -- NT4 OTOH moved GDI into the kernel to better support multi proc systems).

But bottom line: Maintaining any form of stability under Win9x is a pipe dream.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
Like if you open up IE and then try to go to the control panel or start up another program everything just goes insane and then you get a nice blue screen or the system just hangs until you ctrl alt del or restart the computer.

Is there a specific reason why Windows 98/ME does this? How can I prevent it from happening?

Doesn't do it for me?

I've IE open as well as MS word and an accounting program ATM. This lappy with ME has 384MB of system ram. The rest of the 98se boxes here have 512MB.

Maybe not enough ram?

 

[Link19]

Doesn't do it for me?

I've IE open as well as MS word and an accounting program ATM. This lappy with ME has 384MB of system ram. The rest of the 98se boxes here have 512MB.

Maybe not enough ram?

Not enough RAM isn't the problem. The problem is that Windows 98/ME suck and are POS operating systems. Add more than 512MB, and it will choke. You'd be lucky if Windows 98/ME were even half stable with more than 128MB. For a decent system (1GHz+ CPU and more than 128MB RAM), use Windows 2000/XP. Don't even consider POS Windows 98/ME!

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Something like this you mean? (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912)

I think it is a bit rash to call Windows Toystation a "POS" OS. It was intended as a stepping stone to Windows NT -- nothing more! It has served its purpose, now lets move on.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: BikeDude
Something like this you mean? (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912)

I think it is a bit rash to call Windows Toystation a "POS" OS. It was intended as a stepping stone to Windows NT -- nothing more! It has served its purpose, now lets move on.

Sure, it served it's purpose for simple 32-bit computing and running 16-bit legacy DOS and Windows applications. But for multi tasking and resource intensive 32-bit computing, IT SERVED no purpose and was a complete and utter POS!

 

[Fern]

I see Link19 is still on the "trash" 98se bandwagon

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: Fern
I see Link19 is still on the "trash" 98se bandwagon

The "trash" 98se bandwagon bunch are also known as the "people who are telling the truth."

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: Fern
I see Link19 is still on the "trash" 98se bandwagon

The "trash" 98se bandwagon bunch are also known as the "people who are trolling with non-helpful posts."

Fixed it for ya

It's just everso helpful to keep posting "98se is a POS" etc when peeps are seeking help in getting things fixed.

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: Fern

Fixed it for ya

It's just everso helpful to keep posting "98se is a POS" etc when peeps are seeking help in getting things fixed.

Especially when others are helpfully pointing out (from personal experience) that running IE and another app will
not crash the system unless something else is seriously wrong with the setup.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Fern
I see Link19 is still on the "trash" 98se bandwagon

I'm on the "trash anything 9X/ME bandwagon". Stop trying to imply 98SE as a trick to make me think I'm only dissing 98SE only because 98SE was the most popular of the 9X family. Yes, I'm dissing 98SE, but more importantly, I'm dissing anything 9X.

Windows 9X/ME should have been completely trashed 3 years ago when it comes to running the latest software on hardware made 3 years ago.

3 years ago, Windows 9X still had to be supported a lot because XP hadn't been out for a year yet, but why in the heck support it for the latest hardware?? People who buy the latest hardware should be using an OS suited for that hardware, not such a POS OS like 9X.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: Fern
I see Link19 is still on the "trash" 98se bandwagon

The "trash" 98se bandwagon bunch are also known as the "people who are telling the truth."

Exactly!! Nobody should be willing to offer to help someone who intends to run Windows 98/ME as their primary OS to run modern software on an Athlon 64/Pentium 4 PC because those same people aren't willing to help themselves by at least running a decent OS on their rig. WHy help someone, if they aren't willing to help themselves. It's different if someone with an older PC (more than 4 years old) is seeking Windows 98/ME help.

 

[Nocturnal]

I don't run the OS myself. I was just wondering because I fix many computers that still run them.

 

[The Pentium Guy]

Ask them to upgrade to Windows 2000. If they have old PC's XP might be a bit too much for them.

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: Link19

Exactly!! Nobody should be willing to offer to help someone who intends to run Windows 98/ME as their primary OS to run modern software on an Athlon 64/Pentium 4 PC because those same people aren't willing to help themselves by at least running a decent OS on their rig. WHy help someone, if they aren't willing to help themselves. It's different if someone with an older PC (more than 4 years old) is seeking Windows 98/ME help.

Its not up to you to question why someone might want to run a particular OS on a particular platform.

And your posts did not state that originally, QFT:

ANother words, the answer to that question is simple. Windows 98/ME flat out suck and are pieces of junk when it comes to multi tasking and 32-bit computing. Please don't tell me you expect to be able to run such a POS OS like Windows 98/ME on the system listed in your sig.

That sounds like you are still holding some sort of personal grudge against Windows 9x. Stop taking your OSes so personally.

The actual answer Nocturnal is seeking is to recheck and get the latest drivers you can find for the hardware your customers
are running. Then consider installing the unofficial Windows 98 SE service pack on some
of those machines.

Windows 2000 (or some Linux variant) are viable solutions, only if you can also gaurantee that thier hardware will be equally
supported on those OSes, or that you are willing to find equivalents for any lost functionality that they still use on that system.

 

[xgsound]

Originally posted by: CQuinn


That sounds like you are still holding some sort of personal grudge against Windows 9x. Stop taking your OSes so personally.

The actual answer Nocturnal is seeking is to recheck and get the latest drivers you can find for the hardware your customers
are running. Then consider installing the unofficial Windows 98 SE service pack on some
of those machines.

Windows 2000 (or some Linux variant) are viable solutions, only if you can also gaurantee that thier hardware will be equally
supported on those OSes, or that you are willing to find equivalents for any lost functionality that they still use on that system.

I am one more vote for the win98se service pack. If you have 64 to 128 Meg it is very servicable, particularly on older PCs or under 256 Meg of memory.

If you have > 256 Meg on a 700 Mhz or better XP can be very servicable too if you cut down the services a little.


Jim

 

[ch33kym0use]

windows 98 has bad memory protection huh?

windows 2000 is better and xp is even better than that if you ask me