Problems Installing Windows 98

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Frank - 22 Aug 2006 03:59 GMT

Ok, let me explain myself before telling me that I'm just plain stupid. So,
here's the situation. I have a customer that's looking to operate on old
version of digitizing software. The software was designed to run on Windows
98.

Here's the issue: when attempting to install Windows 98 on our customer’s
brand new hp computer, no real problems are noticed. As prompted initially,
Windows formatted the C: drive. After doing a complete install and
re-booting the PC a second time as prompted, the PC locks when attempting to
boot up. So, realizing that this operating system runs off of DOS and the
file systems needs to be FAT, not NTFS formatted, I partitioned the hard
drive to operate in DOS via FDISK. After this hard format of the hard drive,
I re-started the PC with the Windows install CD in the drive, and Windows
began a secondary format of the drive. This looked to be the format that I
was looking for as it was taking forever (not the usually quick format that I
was continually running into). After taking a lunch break, I returned to
finish off the install process of Windows 98 once again. Thinking that I had
finally done it, the PC rebooted, and then once again, just as the Windows 98
logo appeared, the PC fully locked.

Oh, and don't let me forget, I couldn't get Windows to find the PC's CD ROM
drive (although I could access it via DOS). When in Safe Mode, I was able to
ensure that the Hard Drives File Systems was in fact set as FAT and could
operate normally.

I hope all this makes some sense to any professional's out there that can
offer some advice. I'm no where near an expert, so any advice from anyone
would be GREATLY appreciated!

Thanks,

Frank

Reply to this Message

USR - 22 Aug 2006 04:25 GMT

Since this is a new system, it most likely not function with Windows 98.
Not just a driver issue but also hardware limitations.

Have you tried running this program in XP using compatibility mode?

> Ok, let me explain myself before telling me that I'm just plain stupid.
> So,
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> Frank

Reply to this Message

Frank - 22 Aug 2006 16:43 GMT

I've heard of compatibility mode, I'll take a look and see if it helps.
Thanks for your suggestion!

Frank

> Since this is a new system, it most likely not function with Windows 98.
> Not just a driver issue but also hardware limitations.
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> >
> > Frank

Reply to this Message

Labrat - 02 Sep 2006 19:46 GMT

=?Utf-8?B?RnJhbms=?= voiced his/her/it's humble opinion in
microsoft.public.win98.performance on Tue 22 Aug 2006 09:43:01a:

> I've heard of compatibility mode, I'll take a look and see if it
> helps. Thanks for your suggestion!

Compatibility mode is to run a misbehaving legacy file whilst running XP.
Win95, 98, 98SE have similar ways to do the same for legacy DOS proggies.

> Frank
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>> > attempting to
>> > boot up.

Same thing happened with me. We bought a Compaq from future shop a couple
of Christmas' ago that came with XP. "Screw that" I said. I'm using 98SE.
Anyway I wiped the drive nad tried to get SE and it was a no-go. Compaq,
HP, Dell etc. use proprietary motherboards, chips, hard disks etc that will
ONLY work with the OS provided. I phoned Compaq, ranted and raved a little
and had them send me a complete set of recovery disks as I'd already hosed
the recovery partition as well as the C:\ drive. Learned a valuable lesson
that day. Build your own as I've been doing for twenty years. Then you
know what's really going on with your system.

I've been using the same install of 98SE for almost seven years now. It's
survived eight motherboard transplants. The latest was running a dual-boot
system with XP Home. I replaced my aging Duron 1000 MB with a new 64 bit
Sempron equipped MB, 800 MHz FSB, HyperThreading technology, yadda-yadda.
Xp got hosed and I type to you through the amazing stick-too-itnous of the
not so late tho still great... Windows 98SE. TADA!

I can still access my XP partition, tho the proggies won't run it doesn't
much matter as everything I need really works in SE. Another dual-boot is
in the works. 98SE with 64-bit Unbuntu Linux. Eventually planning to
migrate to Linux with SE as back-up.

It's a survivor fer sure.

You likely will never get 98 to work on an HP comp. If you want to try a
dual-boot system get a new, never installed HD, install Win98SE first, then
XP. 98 HAS to be on the C:\ drive. Xp being the shiftless bum that it is
will live anywhere.

So, realizing that this operating system runs off of DOS

>> > and the file systems needs to be FAT, not NTFS formatted, I
>> > partitioned the hard drive to operate in DOS via FDISK. After this
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> > Windows 98
>> > logo appeared, the PC fully locked.

Start with FDisk and create the partitions you need. Format the partitions
and make the first partition active. This is where you will install SE.
Best to have another comp with access to the internet to get the drivers,
etc you'll find you need. Copy all the 98 files off the CD into a folder
on the C:\ drive. Like c:\Winstall. Run Setup.exe from there so you won't
be nagged for the 98 CD every time 98 wants a file off the disk. If you're
installing XP as well, just boot it off the Cd and it will detect SE and
install itself in whatever partition you have prepared. DO NOT select
NTFS! Stick to FAT32. Once NTFS is installed you can NEVER get XP off of
it. If you are so short of HD space you shouldn't be doing this in the
first place

>> > Oh, and don't let me forget, I couldn't get Windows to find the
>> > PC's CD ROM
>> > drive (although I could access it via DOS). When in Safe Mode, I
>> > was able to
>> > ensure that the Hard Drives File Systems was in fact set as FAT and
>> > could operate normally.

Make sure you have a line similar to this in your

autoexec.bat and autoexec.dos

C:\MSCDEX.EXE /D:mscd001 /L:%CDROM%

and a line like this in your config.sys and config.dos

device=c:\oakcdrom.sys /D:mscd001

Both are text files and should be opened, edited and saved in Notepad or
other pure text editor. If they won't save because they're read only, copy
your text, close the .bat or .sys file. Right-click on the original>
properties> uncheck the read-only attribute, hidden too if checked,
apply or OK, re-open the file, then paste your text that you saved, edit
and save it. Reboot.

Worked for me.

You need to set up the paths properly to make it work. I just find the
newest files with the Search and copy them to C:\ . Look for mscdex.exe
and *cdrom.sys. Copy the newest mscdex.exe and any *cdrom.sys to the root.

PS: Rename the .sys file in the device= line to the cdrom.sys file
available to you.

>> > I hope all this makes some sense to any professional's out there
>> > that can offer some advice. I'm no where near an expert, so any
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> >
>> > Frank

Signature

Later......

Labrat...... |:^{)

Reply to this Message

Alan - 22 Aug 2006 07:53 GMT

You haven't forgotten that the max size for the RAM is 512 and the largest
disk is 127g? You can of course go higher with the RAM but you have to
modify the system.ini first. If you are over both this criteria, Windows 98
has problems.
Alan

> Ok, let me explain myself before telling me that I'm just plain stupid. So,
> here's the situation. I have a customer that's looking to operate on old
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Frank

Reply to this Message

Ron Martell - 22 Aug 2006 21:08 GMT

>Ok, let me explain myself before telling me that I'm just plain stupid. So,
>here's the situation. I have a customer that's looking to operate on old
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Here's the issue: when attempting to install Windows 98 on our customers
>brand new hp computer, no real problems are noticed.

<snip>

Installing Windows 98 on a brand new computer is comparable to putting
a Model T Ford engine into a brand new Ferrari. It just isn't
designed to work with the newer hardware.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Signature

Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

Reply to this Message

USR - 22 Aug 2006 22:05 GMT

>>Ok, let me explain myself before telling me that I'm just plain stupid.
>>So,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> a Model T Ford engine into a brand new Ferrari. It just isn't
> designed to work with the newer hardware.

That's not only a bad comparison but quite the exageration!

If you're using applications which benefit from the extra hardware speed but
for which there is no benefit of using for example XP, then why not use 98?

For example, I'm using a 3200+ ( which is overclocked to 9x270 ) with 98SE.
For what I use 98SE for, this gives a humunges performance boost. So using
your analogy, "My Model T OS is working damned well in my overclocked
Ferrari". =o)

Reply to this Message

Jonny - 23 Aug 2006 04:21 GMT

>>>Ok, let me explain myself before telling me that I'm just plain stupid.
>>>So,
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> So using your analogy, "My Model T OS is working damned well in my
> overclocked Ferrari". =o)

Believe Ron's was an appropriate response for most who would pose such a
question. Not all though. In light of the wording of the initial post,
believe its appropriate.

98 vs 98SE on current hardware, besides the drivers and over capacity hard
drive, there's also the ndis.vxd problem in 98. Not present in 98SE. BTW
ndis.vxd from ME works fine in 98 or 98SE from my own uses.

Signature

Jonny

Reply to this Message

Jonny - 23 Aug 2006 04:12 GMT

> Ok, let me explain myself before telling me that I'm just plain stupid.
> So,
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> Frank

Windows 98 CD cannot format anything but FAT or FAT32. NTFS its unable to
perform. The same is for fdisk creating a partition. BTW formatting and
partitioning are 2 different animals.

98 is unable to handle most recent PCs onboard hardware. Drivers must be
installed. Most recent PCs do not have drivers for 98 OS available.

Fdisk cannot properly handle most recent hard disk's capacity. Scandisk and
defrag also have problem.

Only the hard drives are recognized on the ide cable in safe mode. CD
reading devices are out of the question.

You don't want to use FAT on current hard drives, FAT32 is more appropriate
with these.

Lastly, all current PCs cannot propery install 98 on them due to one file
that cannot handle the cpu speed, ndis.vxd. 98SE and ME do not have this
problem.

Signature

Jonny

Reply to this Message

J. P. Gilliver - 23 Aug 2006 20:25 GMT

[]

> Windows 98 CD cannot format anything but FAT or FAT32. NTFS its unable to
> perform. The same is for fdisk creating a partition. BTW formatting and
> partitioning are 2 different animals.

. I think I have sometimes found that not only can it not create it, FDISK
(at least the W98 and before versions) sometimes can't delete an NTFS
partition, either. I've had to resort to a Linux boot floppy to do so
(someone's root and boot, or some name like that - I don't follow Linux).

> 98 is unable to handle most recent PCs onboard hardware. Drivers must be
> installed. Most recent PCs do not have drivers for 98 OS available.

What hardware, specifically? I'm not aware of any _category_ (other than USB
digital TV sticks!) that isn't supported by '98SE, though I can well imagine
that some specific examples will not be supported: but most of the common
sound, USB, ethernet, and so on parts are likely to be supported, and on the
whole the RAM and processor are at a level below that the OS looks at.
(Certainly, my 2.4 Celeron-based system - it's a P4 mobo - works almost
completely; there's some wizard management chip that isn't supported, but I
seem to be managing well enough without accessing that.)

> Fdisk cannot properly handle most recent hard disk's capacity. Scandisk
> and defrag also have problem.

That is indeed true. Some of the HD manufacturers will get round this for
you, by downloadable utilities (the modern equivalents of OnTrack and its
brothers), but I guess these will stop being made - check [the
manufacturer's website for such utilities] before you buy would seem to be
wise.
[]

> You don't want to use FAT on current hard drives, FAT32 is more
> appropriate with these.

Do you mean FAT16? (In which case I'd agree!) Was there ever one just called
FAT? Even the one floppies use has a number (FAT12).

> Lastly, all current PCs cannot propery install 98 on them due to one file
> that cannot handle the cpu speed, ndis.vxd. 98SE and ME do not have this
> problem.

[]
Right. I don't think I'd ever recommend anyone trying to run FE (?); I'm not
aware of _any_ advantage it has - I don't think it used/needed less RAM, HD,
power, or anything.

Reply to this Message

Jonny - 24 Aug 2006 04:06 GMT

> []
>> Windows 98 CD cannot format anything but FAT or FAT32. NTFS its unable
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> partition, either. I've had to resort to a Linux boot floppy to do so
> (someone's root and boot, or some name like that - I don't follow Linux).

Fdisk cannot delete an NTFS logical drive in an extended partition.

>> 98 is unable to handle most recent PCs onboard hardware. Drivers must be
>> installed. Most recent PCs do not have drivers for 98 OS available.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> almost completely; there's some wizard management chip that isn't
> supported, but I seem to be managing well enough without accessing that.)

The chipset specifics like smbus controller, onboard USB 2.0 and so forth.
Yours is not a recent one that I can see. The subject OS is windows 98, not
98SE. But both would have that problem even on 3 year old motherboard like
yours.

>> Fdisk cannot properly handle most recent hard disk's capacity. Scandisk
>> and defrag also have problem.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> manufacturer's website for such utilities] before you buy would seem to be
> wise.

Yep. WD offers a similar utility. The OP is/was using fdisk.

> []
>> You don't want to use FAT on current hard drives, FAT32 is more
>> appropriate with these.
>
> Do you mean FAT16? (In which case I'd agree!) Was there ever one just
> called FAT? Even the one floppies use has a number (FAT12).

FAT16 is commonly referred to as FAT. OP was using fdisk which will not
partition a hard disk in FAT12.

>> Lastly, all current PCs cannot propery install 98 on them due to one file
>> that cannot handle the cpu speed, ndis.vxd. 98SE and ME do not have this
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> not aware of _any_ advantage it has - I don't think it used/needed less
> RAM, HD, power, or anything.

In its heyday, there wasn't anything wrong with 98. Just the newer hardware
that came along afterwards it didn't support natively. MS did provide some
after release support with drivers for 98SE, did nothing for 98.

Signature

Jonny

Reply to this Message