• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Win98se and modern hardware - can it be made to work?

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
I realize that this request may garner some ridicule, but I recently transferred my multi-boot OS install (Win98se, W2K SP2, XP SP1) from my old AMD XP2000+/KT400/768MB rig to a new Intel E4400/865PE/2GB rig. I got Win98se to re-detect the hardware just fine, but now when booting and attempting to run programs, I get a "not enough memory to run program" error. Attempting to boot in Safe Mode gets me a different error, about not having enough memory to initialize Windows.

In my existing install, I already had the MaxPhysPage tweak in the SYSTEM.INI file. It's supposed to limit Win98se's usage of memory to a specific page limit, I had it set to 512MB. I also had VCACHE set to a limited size of around 16MB, I think.

But it appears that these "fixes" are incomplete, and Win98se still bugs out with too much RAM installed. (In fact I had similar issues installing it onto a C2D laptop with 1GB RAM installed, don't ask.)

I remember an issue with Win9x running out of "low memory" (memory under 1MB), because Win9x needs to create a small data structure known as a PSP (program segment prefix, also used by DOS) for each process in the system.

There was a program that specifically fragmented DOS low memory to workaround this issue, so that some driver wouldn't steal all of the DOS low memory and cause this issue. Does anyone remember about that program or it's name?

I'm not entirely sure that is the real issue though.

One idea that I had to limit Win98se's memory usage, would be to create a RAMDISK in XMS memory, to use up 1.5GB of RAM, thus leaving Win98se with only 512MB. I haven't tried that yet, I will when I get back to my box.

It would be a lot simpler if BIOSes offered an option to limit overall physical RAM size available to the OS. Then one could set that limit and boot Win9x, and then reset it and boot back into XP.

Oh yeah, I also had to do a repair install in both W2K and XP, because those installs wouldn't boot, in fact they wouldn't even load the 2nd-stage bootloader (the load bar display). Not sure what the issue was, although they were installed with the MPS Uniprocessor HAL, and I was running on a multi-core ACPI system. I used a W2K SP4 and XP SP2 disc to do the repair install, so when it was done, I ended up with a free upgrade to both OSes. They were long overdue, I suppose. 🙂

Edit: For some reason, my previous edit doesn't show up when I click "Edit", only my original post.
Background info: http://www.patentstorm.us/pate...64811-description.html
1MBFort: http://www.macarlo.com/mbfort.htm
Fix1MB: http://www.fors.com/orasupp/win31/28811_1.HTM , http://www.microsoft.com/msj/backissues96.aspx
 
Wouldn't it be easier to virtualize your 98 box and run it within VMWare? You certainly have enough RAM to handle that.
 
I was debating going the VM route, for all of my existing OS partitions, actually. The way I have things installed, W2K (D🙂 and XP (E🙂 reference directories on C: (Win98se), so losing the C: drive would slightly bork the other OS installs too. Is there a way to run a VM, off of a physical disk, not a virtual disk? I think VirtualPC will allow me to do that. The other problem is, if I'm running it under a VM, I don't think that I can have other OSes access that filesystem at the same time. That would be the tricky part.
 
Aside from all the hacks to make over 512mb RAM operate, I'm pretty sure 98 support was cut from nForce 4 chipsets on (and Intel equivalent)... might not be too pleasant regardless. I'm sure you'll get a billion of these comments, but - why exactly are you still using 98, especially with that decent of hardware?
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I was debating going the VM route, for all of my existing OS partitions, actually. The way I have things installed, W2K (D🙂 and XP (E🙂 reference directories on C: (Win98se), so losing the C: drive would slightly bork the other OS installs too. Is there a way to run a VM, off of a physical disk, not a virtual disk? I think VirtualPC will allow me to do that. The other problem is, if I'm running it under a VM, I don't think that I can have other OSes access that filesystem at the same time. That would be the tricky part.

As MrChad says, yes, you can create a VM and point it at a physical block device, so that shoiuld allow you to boot but still see your drives from other OS's. The other option is all of the other OS's have tools to mount vmware disk files as drives. This way you can just 'move' that 98 box to another machine by xcopying it if you ever want to.
 
Back
Top