 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / Setup / October 2005GA-7zx install problems
Been searching on this problem, nothing really on target found. Lots of suggestions out there but no one seems to know the definitive answer to why it is so hard to get win98se to install on this box. I have x-posted because I have yet to find a definitive answer to this problem. Gigabyte ZA-7zx Rev. 1.01. AMD Duron 800 MHZ two hds: 14GB and 7GB-same channel 256 MB Ram Bios American Megatrends 1/2001 I got this box 2nd hand. I have the MB manual (i think-almost impossible to tell with from the gigabyte website). Trying to install Win98SE from Slave drive cab files, taken from another working system. Using same system win98 boot disk I sysed a: c: to put the boot files onto the C: install drive (primary boot). Can I install by booting from w98 boot diskette? Or must I boot from c: drive? I also have two cd-roms that work with dos drivers, but no other drivers installed for them, a modem card (cannot find the name). Matrox video installed. I think onboard sound. I keep getting to the install screen and the files are supposedly loaded to the C: drive (when exercising setup from the D drive). Then I get all kinds of errors after that including: SUWIN GPF at setupx.dll, "serious error, cannot write to c:", "emm386 found error, halted system". I really do NOT want to start taking the machine apart to install win98se-would rather avoid taking out cards to make the install and will just use some other OS. Is there another version of windows that is not so problematical with this machine? I have done nothing with the bios and do not even know if the settings are factory default. Anyone? I forgot to ask, how does one determine whether or not to install various mfg. drivers onto this box prior to install? I have the latest "4-in-1" driver package-what drivers are those by the way? I also have an audio driver for w98-all taken from gigabyte site. I have hwinfo but not really sure how to use the report it generates. > Been searching on this problem, nothing really on target found. Lots > of suggestions out there but no one seems to know the definitive [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Anyone? > Then I get all kinds of errors after that including: SUWIN GPF at > setupx.dll, "serious error, cannot write to c:", "emm386 found error, > halted system". I had a similar problem with random installation errors a few years ago. Possibly my worst weekend ever, with over 26 attempts to reinstall :-} Download and run Memtest86 (its a self booting memory test app) - leave it running for a while - overnight if possible - but if the memory is bad you`ll probably know within 10 minutes. It sounds suspiciously like a memory error to me.  SignaturePlease add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails **** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" **** >> Then I get all kinds of errors after that including: SUWIN GPF at >> setupx.dll, "serious error, cannot write to c:", "emm386 found error, >> halted system". > > I had a similar problem with random installation errors a few years ago. > Possibly my worst weekend ever, with over 26 attempts to reinstall :-} Thanks for the answer, but I already did this before posting-no errors at least for the 15 minutes I ran it. > Download and run Memtest86 (its a self booting memory test app) - leave > it running for a while - overnight if possible - but if the memory is > bad you`ll probably know within 10 minutes. It sounds suspiciously like > a memory error to me. >>> Then I get all kinds of errors after that including: SUWIN GPF at >>> setupx.dll, "serious error, cannot write to c:", "emm386 found error, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >like >> a memory error to me. Software memory testers are useless. If you have two sticks of ram take one out and try the one left in on it's own and then in each slot. If no good then do the same with the other stick. HTH :) SignatureFree Windows/PC help, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html thanks but I only have one stick-256MB and everything else I've run seem stable, so why do u think memory is bad?? >>>> Then I get all kinds of errors after that including: SUWIN GPF at >>>> setupx.dll, "serious error, cannot write to c:", "emm386 found error, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > If no good then do the same with the other stick. > HTH :) >thanks but I only have one stick-256MB and everything else I've run seem >stable, so why do u think memory is bad?? Yes. Or it's edge connectors need cleaning.You can use some clean alcohol(Vodka) and tissue to do this.Also try the stick in a different slot. You can also set the BIOS Ram parameters to their lowest speed and least aggressive settings. SignatureFree Windows/PC help, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html I'd recommend a pencil eraser (a clean one) instead of alcohol, vodka or otherwise. SignatureGary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User > >thanks but I only have one stick-256MB and everything else I've run seem > >stable, so why do u think memory is bad?? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You can also set the BIOS Ram parameters to their lowest speed and > least aggressive settings. >I'd recommend a pencil eraser (a clean one) instead of alcohol, vodka or >otherwise. Yup.Good call.Forgot that trick :) SignatureFree Windows/PC help, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html Hey, why waste good vodka? Or even bad vodka? SignatureGary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User > >I'd recommend a pencil eraser (a clean one) instead of alcohol, vodka or > >otherwise. > > Yup.Good call.Forgot that trick :) Thanks very much for your reply, Shep. I will try your suggestions. more below.. >>thanks but I only have one stick-256MB and everything else I've run seem >>stable, so why do u think memory is bad?? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You can also set the BIOS Ram parameters to their lowest speed and > least aggressive settings. ok can you advise which settings and why this is a factor? thanks. Many things can interfere with a setup. This is why you may not find a difinitive answer. Many unknowns are not provided for someone to be exact. These things can all cause the kind of error message your received: • There are incorrect basic input/output system (BIOS) settings for a built-in peripheral device on your motherboard (for example, cache settings, CPU timing, hard disks, and so on). • Your computer has bad or mismatched random access memory (RAM) or cache (for example, if you are using EDO and non-EDO RAM, or you are using different RAM speeds). • The motherboard in your computer is not working properly. • Hard Drive not set to double buffer. Simplify your install by formating C:drive. Make afolder on the formated drive and Copy your cab files over to this follder. Use startup disk and launch setup from this new folder. To do this with your current setup: Be sure your Hard Drive jumper settings are Master(to be installed) & slave(setup files). If you have 2 sticks of RAM in the computer, install with one. 128MB is plenty. Add 2nd stick after setup. Start system with a win98 startup disk that includes format.com on it. This file can be copyied onto startup disk from a running win98 computer (C:\Windows\Command\format.com). Start without CDrom support. Type 'e:' press enter. type 'dir /p' press enter. Should see all folders & files on your slave drive. type 'cd windows\options\cabs' press enter You should be able to verify your Windows cab files on E drive. Type 'a:' press enter. Type in 'format C:' press enter. After format type in 'mkdir win98' press enter. Type in copy 'C:\windows\options\cabs\*.* c:\win98\' press enter. Type in 'C:' press enter. Type in 'cd win98' press enter. Type in 'dir /p' press enter. You should see all setup files on C: Shut off computer. Disconnect your slave drive. Start computer with startup disk (no cdrom support). At command prompt, type 'fdisk /mbr' press enter. At command prompt, type in 'C:' press enter. Type in 'cd win98' press enter. Type in 'setup' press enter. > I really do NOT want to start taking the machine apart to install > win98se-would rather avoid taking out cards to make the install and will > just use some other OS.Is there another version of windows that is not > so problematical with this machine? > Anything you use can be problematic if you don't want to do the work to set it right. You could install Windows XP from a CDrom. It may take some of the issues out of installing an OS to a drive. Good Luck > Been searching on this problem, nothing really on target found. Lots of > suggestions out there but no one seems to know the definitive answer to [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Anyone? No disrespect intended, but why would memory be bad if other things run ok? Also memtest does not show bad memory and this is reportedly a good program. Anyone know what bios settings are best for this, I don't really understand fully the MS page on slowing the computer and the various settings. I like to know what I am doing before I start fiddling with bios settings. Anyone? > Many things can interfere with a setup. This is why you may not find > a difinitive answer. Many unknowns are not provided for someone to be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > formated drive and Copy your cab files over to this follder. Use > startup disk and launch setup from this new folder. This install is on a blank drive. D:drive/setupfiles/setup.exe to C: drive. Both are blank except for D drive setup/cab files, which were taken from a working win98se system. No mismatched memory cuz there is only one stick and everything else SEEMS stable. I have two cd-rw on same ide channel with only dos drivers, so maybe try disconnecting those. Also, I think ram was set to maximum speed, so maybe slow it down. > To do this with your current setup: > Be sure your Hard Drive jumper settings are Master(to be installed) & > slave(setup files). If you have 2 sticks of RAM in the computer, > install with one. 128MB is plenty. Add 2nd stick after setup. see above only one stick. Cable select working on bothd drives. Start > system with a win98 startup disk that includes format.com on it. This > file can be copyied onto startup disk from a running win98 computer [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > At command prompt, type in 'C:' press enter. Type in 'cd win98' press > enter. Type in 'setup' press enter. I am not a novice. This stuff has already been done. These are freshly formatted drives and scandisk ok. >> I really do NOT want to start taking the machine apart to install >> win98se-would rather avoid taking out cards to make the install and [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> >> Anyone? > No disrespect intended, but why would memory be bad if other things run > ok? Bad memory is just one of those b*stard intermittent random error generating things that sounded a little like your problem. It may well not be the problem. Have you tried booting up from something like a Knoppix CD, and does that work ok ? SignaturePlease add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails **** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" **** See my own followup to OP. Am talking with Gigabyte tech people, they have some novel suggestions. Your input is welcome, thanks. >> No disrespect intended, but why would memory be bad if other things >> run ok? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Have you tried booting up from something like a Knoppix CD, and does > that work ok ? I am talking to the gigabyte tech people. They tell me that the setup files I have may be from a OEM win98se release that tries to install it's own drivers which are incompatible with the drivers on the system. New question, is there an install switch/switches that prevents setup from installing such drivers AND, how do I know what drivers the box is currently using, since I got the box second hand? Will hwinfo give this information? Should I try to install latest gigabyte drivers? They are also telling me I cannot have the hdrives on the secondary ide channel, which they are working ok on now. I must move them to channel one primary. Never heard of this before? > Been searching on this problem, nothing really on target found. Lots > of suggestions out there but no one seems to know the definitive [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Anyone? >I am talking to the gigabyte tech people. They tell me that the setup >files I have may be from a OEM win98se release that tries to install >it's own drivers which are incompatible with the drivers on the system. Bullshit. >New question, is there an install switch/switches that prevents setup >from installing such drivers AND, how do I know what drivers the box is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >channel, which they are working ok on now. I must move them to channel >one primary. Never heard of this before? See above. Some tech w.nker on the other end of the phone who knows bugger all(Scheisse alles). Get/Borrow another ram stick. SignatureFree Windows/PC help, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html Type in SETUP /? to see the switches. Yes, I do believe there is one just for that, but I can't say for certain. The /nh switch is the one I'm thinking of. "This switch bypasses running the Hwinfo.exe program at 0 percent files and RunOnce" Should work fine with a plain-vanilla Win98 OEM CD. Not sure where you'd run into the demand to install drivers, but I'd want to copy all of the drivers installation files you're going to need to the HD from a Startup floppy boot, ahead of time. Create a folder called drivers, then sub-folders for each set, using the Startup disk's CD drivers to get the job done. You want to be able to get to them easily when the time comes. My guess (haven't tried it) is that you would want to boot immediately into Safe Mode to run the installers that come as EXE files. Description of the Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows Me Setup Switches http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;186111 SignatureGary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User > I am talking to the gigabyte tech people. They tell me that the setup > files I have may be from a OEM win98se release that tries to install [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > > > Anyone? > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;186111 Thanks for the url. This guy at gigabyte quit responding. I get the feeling my questions are beyond his level. There are TONS of posts with people having trouble installing win9x with gigabyte boards. Either win98 is buggy or their boards are buggy. Not sure which at this point. I wonder if win2000 would be any easier to install. Also several have said they needed to modify the bios settings and that the comp. might be running too fast for win98, but they do not explain exactly which bios settings and why. As I said in my OP, there is alot of suggestions but trying to find which is valid is problematical. Why do tech support people try to fudge replies when they really do not know? See enclosed replies - > I am talking to the gigabyte tech people. They tell me that the setup > files I have may be from a OEM win98se release that tries to install > it's own drivers which are incompatible with the drivers on the system. They're talking a manufactured PC with its OEM CD. A buy with hardware OEM CD works just the same as retail for a new install. > New question, is there an install switch/switches that prevents setup > from installing such drivers AND, how do I know what drivers the box is > currently using, since I got the box second hand? Will hwinfo give this > information? Should I try to install latest gigabyte drivers? You might have chipset specfic drivers that windows does not have a specific set of drivers for. In this case, a generic set of drivers is installed for the motherboard. Any other suspect hardware should be either disabled in the bios, and slot hardware removed until the install is completed. > They are also telling me I cannot have the hdrives on the secondary ide > channel, which they are working ok on now. I must move them to channel > one primary. Never heard of this before? The boot drive that windows resides on should be disk 0, or master on the primary ide channel. Its okay, even advisable to have the second hard drive on the secondary channel if the PC has problems with reads/writes with two hard drives on the primary ide channel. Further, I would remove the both cd devices from the system to eliminate any possibility of these causing I/O communication problems on the either ide channel. Be sure to reset any jumper pins on the hard drives if needed for proper master/slave designation, especially if a WD hard drive. Replacing the ide ribbon cables is standard procedure on older PCs with me. Stick with 80 wire versions. Stick with master/slave designations only. If you do have a marginal I/O problem, copying the files from the CD to a hard drive, then using those for an installation only multiplies the possibility of more problems. RAM also plays into copying as well. Booting from a floppy is standard procedure with installing Win9X/ME. Normally, the startup diskette is used. See bootdisk.com for yours, be sure to follow directions at the site on making the floppy. This contains a generic dos driver for locating most cdroms, but not all. As @Shep indicated, sure sounds like a RAM problem, or a bios timing problem in relation to the RAM. My question is why is emm386 running high memory, instead of just upper memory for drivers? At least that's what the error message implies. Try the /noems switch If you're not running any drivers high umb, there's no need for emm386 at all. If the motherboard is of Via chipset origin, by all means load the 4 in 1 drivers. This is AFTER windows is installed. > > Been searching on this problem, nothing really on target found. Lots > > of suggestions out there but no one seems to know the definitive [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > > > Anyone? > See enclosed replies - > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They're talking a manufactured PC with its OEM CD. A buy with > hardware OEM CD works just the same as retail for a new install. I told them that, but they will not accept it. They keep claiming I've got a bad copy of the install when I know I don't. >> New question, is there an install switch/switches that prevents setup >> from installing such drivers AND, how do I know what drivers the box [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > be either disabled in the bios, and slot hardware removed until the > install is completed. No I found the problem, see below. >> They are also telling me I cannot have the hdrives on the secondary >> ide channel, which they are working ok on now. I must move them to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hard drive on the secondary channel if the PC has problems with > reads/writes with two hard drives on the primary ide channel. System/windows should work fine as long as c: drive (to which win installs) is drv0, regardless of ide channel at MB. System was working fine with other programs, etc with both drive on ide channel two, although channel one might be faster. > Further, I would remove the both cd devices from the system to > eliminate any possibility of these causing I/O communication problems > on the either ide channel. Be sure to reset any jumper pins on the > hard drives if needed for proper master/slave designation, especially > if a WD hard drive. No this is going down the wrong road see below > Replacing the ide ribbon cables is standard procedure on older PCs > with me. Stick with 80 wire versions. Stick with master/slave [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the possibility of more problems. RAM also plays into copying as > well. not an i/o problem > Booting from a floppy is standard procedure with installing Win9X/ME. > Normally, the startup diskette is used. See bootdisk.com for yours, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As @Shep indicated, sure sounds like a RAM problem, or a bios timing > problem in relation to the RAM. now your getting hot, see below > My question is why is emm386 running high memory, instead of just > upper memory for drivers? At least that's what the error message > implies. Try the /noems switch > If you're not running any drivers high umb, there's no need for emm386 > at all. had to remove emm386 was causing conflicts, even though I believe windows advises using it (if memory serves) if you get an out of error message. *** Ok, here is the solution. I did the following: took out ram stick, cleaned with eraser and alcohol, put back in. System would not boot with ram in another slot, had to use same slot. If stick was put in second slot, blank screen-nothing. took out emm386 which I was using to increase convention memory by loading high cd drivers- you cannot do this it will give u an error- conflicts with windows memory calls. however the thing that really solved the problem is I had to set bios ram to 100MHZ not 133MHZ. Win98 will not install, NOR will it run with the memory set to 133, even though the memory has a sticker on it that says 133MHZ and the memory checked ok with testing and was stable with other apps. It was not the memory but the bios memory speed setting that win98 choked on. I got every kind of error in the book, too many to write down here. SOon as i set it to 100 MHZ install went smoothly. AND if i set it back, after successful install, windows will not boot, give gpf errors. I don't know maybe win98 cannot run on a fast system. There have been several posters who claim this and MS "help" sheet on this advises slowing down the system to accomdate windows. Anyways now have a pretty fast win98 os on this box, except for the sound and modem. Do not know which drivers to install, I think the sound is onboard on this GA-7zx Rev. 1.01, and I don't really know what is in the 4-in-1 package; besides they have another sound driver package for the same board called something like creative sound win2003. Any help along those lines is appreciated. > If the motherboard is of Via chipset origin, by all means load the 4 > in 1 drivers. This is AFTER windows is installed. That is what I was wondering. What drivers exactly do them mean by 4 in one, does that include sound, modem, what? I have the os installed now but it's telling me I need to install drivers for sound and modem. Modem won't even report mfg., it is some generic (prob. piece of crap). Cannot even find anything on card. >> > Been searching on this problem, nothing really on target found. >> > Lots of suggestions out there but no one seems to know the [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> > >> > Anyone? Actually, it *was* the RAM. Either your RAM is only meant to run on 100Mhz or slower, or, if it is nominally 133 RAM, the RAM and/or motherboard have problems that cause them to falter when run at 133 and backing it off to 100 saves the day. I had a similar problem with RAM that was supposedly 133Mhz (Kensington) and a motherboard that should handle that (ABIT AT-7) and they all agreed that 2GB should be no problem. But it was. I can either clock the system back to 100Mhz FSB or I can reduce the amount to 1.5GB, and if not, it got flaky, and this was WinXP, which is quite able to handle faster and more RAM. Note that the effect is worse during installation, and many times all you have to do is clock things back, or use less RAM, to allow Windows to install, after which you can sometimes ramp things back up to full speed and capacity with few if any problems. That wasn't the case in mine -- the errors were fewer once Windows was installed, but they didn't disappear. Clocking back the FSB may simply be reducing the stress on a marginal setup. But it isn't the speed, per se, and it has nothing to do with Windows' capabilities. It's all in the hardware. You either had it configured wrong in the first place according to the hardware you have installed, or it's just gets flaky when you push it to max specs. SignatureGary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User > *** > Ok, here is the solution. I did the following: took out ram stick, [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > >> > > >> > Anyone? > Actually, it *was* the RAM. Either your RAM is only meant to run on > 100Mhz or slower, or, if it is nominally 133 RAM, the RAM and/or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > FSB or I can reduce the amount to 1.5GB, and if not, it got flaky, and > this was WinXP, which is quite able to handle faster and more RAM. You may or may not be right. I found posts claiming that the MB cannot do 133 and I found posts claiming that windows is written such that is cannot handle fast MB speeds. There are many posts on this for people who could not install win98 on various MBs with processors at 1 GHZ or better. This is why MS has a page on the suwin error directing people to reduce the speed of their BIOS settings when installing win98-see their KB article on this under "suwin cause (GPF) in setupx.dll". > Note that the effect is worse during installation, and many times all > you have to do is clock things back, or use less RAM, to allow Windows [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > configured wrong in the first place according to the hardware you have > installed, or it's just gets flaky when you push it to max specs. I don't think so. Everything else runs perfectly at MHZ133, only windoz f*cks up. When in doubt blame MS products, that is usually wherein the fault lies. Also ran memory checkers, no errors. If ram is bad or config is bad it will show running other things as well, not just with MS crap. >> Actually, it *was* the RAM. Either your RAM is only meant to run on >> 100Mhz or slower, or, if it is nominally 133 RAM, the RAM and/or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >reduce the speed of their BIOS settings when installing win98-see their >KB article on this under "suwin cause (GPF) in setupx.dll". Do you mean this article? http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;224836 ================================================================== CAUSE This behavior can occur when any of the following conditions exist: There are incorrect basic input/output system (BIOS) settings for a built-in peripheral device on your motherboard (for example, cache settings, CPU timing, hard disks, and so on). Your computer has bad or mismatched random access memory (RAM) or cache (for example, if you are using EDO and non-EDO RAM, or you are using different RAM speeds). The motherboard in your computer is not working properly. RESOLUTION To work around this behavior, try to slow down your computer by changing the BIOS settings. ================================================================== FWIW, I have no issues with Win98SE running on an AMD 2500 XP CPU, 266MHz DDR SDRAM, SiS chipset, and ECS motherboard. >> Note that the effect is worse during installation, and many times all >> you have to do is clock things back, or use less RAM, to allow Windows [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >f*cks up. When in doubt blame MS products, that is usually wherein the >fault lies. I've seen problems when attempting to run Win95 with an AMD CPU faster than 350MHz, so I guess MS deserves some blame sometimes. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q192841/ >Also ran memory checkers, no errors. If ram is bad or config >is bad it will show running other things as well, not just with MS crap. I'm having difficulty blaming Windows for what looks like a hardware issue. Note that you OS and application software may sometimes provide a better test of your memory than some memory testers. This is because memory diagnostics usually read and write every memory location in relatively quick succession, giving no time for refresh problems to manifest themselves. Your OS, OTOH, may write a block of memory and not return to it for some time. By the time it does, the data in flaky memory cells may have decayed, resulting in GPFs, etc. I've actually witnessed these kinds of problems in minicomputers. In fact on one occasion I had a memory board that caused a single memory parity error once or twice a day in a production machine, but never under regular diagnostics on the test bench. I had to write my own software to exercise the one faulty address in a continuous loop, and even then it took nearly a whole day to trap the offending bit. -- Franc Zabkar Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. > Actually, it *was* the RAM. Either your RAM is only meant to run on > 100Mhz or slower, or, if it is nominally 133 RAM, the RAM and/or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > FSB or I can reduce the amount to 1.5GB, and if not, it got flaky, and > this was WinXP, which is quite able to handle faster and more RAM. BTW, what exactly do you mean by "reduce the amount to 1.5GB", do you mean GHZ?? > Note that the effect is worse during installation, and many times all > you have to do is clock things back, or use less RAM, to allow Windows > to install, after which you can sometimes ramp things back up to full > speed and capacity with few if any problems. That wasn't the case in > mine -- the errors were fewer once Windows was installed, but they > didn't disappear. Nope, won't even boot at 133. Everything else works except Msuck 98. Memory tests ok. Memory is rated at 133. Not ram, Msuck. Only reason I installed it is due to Bill boys monopoly on third party software producers. Will install BSD on second partition. > Clocking back the FSB may simply be reducing the stress on a marginal > setup. But it isn't the speed, per se, and it has nothing to do with > Windows' capabilities. It's all in the hardware. You either had it > configured wrong in the first place according to the hardware you have > installed, or it's just gets flaky when you push it to max specs. Your wrong I think. Has everything to do with windoze. Once I get everything I need for bsd or linux installed it is delete partition for winsuck time. Cant be resetting my bios just for microsuck. Wow! That's two people in one pass that I'm plonking. First time in several months. Congratulations! I've changed my opinion. In both yours and everyman's cases, the obvious problem above all others is BCAK. ROFL!! Good luck with your BSD, etc. SignatureGary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User > > Actually, it *was* the RAM. Either your RAM is only meant to run on > > 100Mhz or slower, or, if it is nominally 133 RAM, the RAM and/or [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > everything I need for bsd or linux installed it is delete partition for > winsuck time. Cant be resetting my bios just for microsuck. > Wow! That's two people in one pass that I'm plonking. First time in > several months. Congratulations! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ROFL!! Good luck with your BSD, etc. The truth hurts, I guess. Billy boy's products are living testimony that quality and market share do not go together. It is too bad the users have to use bad OS's because some greedy incompetent company cannot manage to make money and produce reliable products at the same time. And from another source who also recognizes the fatal faults in windows products: (repeated post, either did not propogate or was rogue cancelled) Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte From: "Stephen T Cripps" <StCri...@technologist.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:05:35 -0000 Local: Sat, Jan 27 2001 3:05 am Subject: Re: Win98 install on GA-7ZX problem Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse There is another problem with Windows on newer, faster systems: basically the computer is too fast for Windows. When using a fast bus and a fast harddrive with a large cache (typically 2Mb), when Windows closes it sends its final data, including finalising the registry, to the HDD. The cache rapidly fills and gradually (in comparison) starts writing to disk. Windows, happy that the data has all been sent to disk, sends an ATX power-off request to the motherboard, which gladly complies and pulls the plug. The net result is that anything still left in the HDD cache is dumped. The typical symptom is as described: an apparently normal shut-down, followed by a registry scan/repair on start-up. Microsoft has a knowledge base article (Q273017) in which they describe the problem as affecting 900MHz+. I have had 800s fail and I think the key is more bus speed (always 133) and disk transfer speed and cache size (ATA100 and 2Mb+). I can see the problem getting worse with the advent of DDR and 200/266 bus speeds. Microsoft have issued a hot-fix, whilst denying all responsibility. The fix replaces the ifsmgr.vxd (IDE file system manager virtual device driver) with a new one, to recognize a new registry setting. The setting provides a short delay on shut-down, to give the HDD time to finish. I feel this is a poor fix as there is still no actual confirmation that the HDD is done, just an arbitrary delay 'that should be long enough'. If you need the hot-fix file, I need your platform type (only released for Win Me or Win 98SE) and email address. I hope this helps. SignatureStephen T Cripps Proprietor MFS MFSoluti...@cwcom.net www.m-f-solutions.mcmail.com >> Wow! That's two people in one pass that I'm plonking. First time in >> several months. Congratulations! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cannot manage to make money and produce reliable products at the same > time. When someone complains that a specific version of Windows eventually runs into this or that problem with hardware that is released after the OS, particularly when that someone gloms onto such a minute detail (and one that was fixed, whatever the author thinks of the solution) and cites it as an example of Windows being a POS, I have to immediately dismiss them as being utterly illogical. Doesn't change my position. The problem here isn't Windows. It *may* be hardware (cf. my own example, which involved XP, an OS that runs just fine on lots faster hardware than I have.) But in this particular case, it's user error, nothing more, nothing less. Simply put, there's millions upon millions of fast machines running Win9x systems with no problem whatsoever. The number of people running 1 to 2 GHz machines at 133/266 or faster that have this problem is miniscule in comparison. No, what we have here are simply a bunch of idiots. Idiots with incredibly poor manners and absolutely ridiculous attitudes towards the rest of the world at large. Bunch of whiners, really. SignatureGary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User > And from another source who also recognizes the fatal faults in windows > products: (repeated post, either did not propogate or was rogue [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > cannot manage to make money and produce reliable products at the same > > time. > When someone complains that a specific version of Windows > eventually runs into this or that problem with hardware that is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > towards the rest of the world at large. Bunch of whiners, > really. Your laughable, really. Do you have any conception of reality and the tons and tons of complaints about ms products. People are idiots ur right, they are idiots for continuing to buy MS software. Each version promises to be better and is more intrusive and violates users privacy and control over their machines and yet each new version is filled with security holes just like all the other previous versions. You really need to get a reality check. MS products stink by and large. They are bloatware, they do not work, they frequently crash for not really good reason and they are frequently hacked. The ONLY reason they have the market share they do is that MS is a facist like company that uses it's monetary and other clout to force people to conform to their bad practices, without even giving developers information they need to do so. It is unfortunate that the other idiots in this country elected officials that let MS off the hook as they should have been split up and MAYBE then we'd start seeing some competent products from them. I am so glad that I have garnered the expertise that I am ready to abandon all ms os's including their new totatalitarian strategy to keep people from upgrading their computers and requiring them to phone big brother to get authorization codes to use their own equipment as they have done with XP. The fact is that MS denies responsiblity for problems like win98 not working on various computers due to their inability to write good code. It is amazing that a company with such resources and supposed talent can turn out such sh.t products. poor winuser replies: > When someone complains that a specific version of Windows > eventually runs into this or that problem with hardware that is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > towards the rest of the world at large. Bunch of whiners, > really. Your laughable, really. Do you have any conception of reality and the tons and tons of complaints about ms products. People are idiots ur right, they are idiots for continuing to buy MS software. Each version promises to be better and is more intrusive and violates users privacy and control over their machines and yet each new version is filled with security holes just like all the other previous versions. You really need to get a reality check. MS products stink by and large. They are bloatware, they do not work, they frequently crash for not really good reason and they are frequently hacked. The ONLY reason they have the market share they do is that MS is a facist like company that uses it's monetary and other clout to force people to conform to their bad practices, without even giving developers information they need to do so. It is unfortunate that the other idiots in this country elected officials that let MS off the hook as they should have been split up and MAYBE then we'd start seeing some competent products from them. I am so glad that I have garnered the expertise that I am ready to abandon all ms os's including their new totatalitarian strategy to keep people from upgrading their computers and requiring them to phone big brother to get authorization codes to use their own equipment as they have done with XP. The fact is that MS denies responsiblity for problems like win98 not working on various computers due to their inability to write good code. It is amazing that a company with such resources and supposed talent can turn out such sh.t products. > > See enclosed replies - > > [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] > >> > > >> > Anyone? Would have suspected column/address refresh rate if the RAM is recognized but the installation can't work with it. Winding back 33 Mhz is a very radical backstep. The RAM, or the two clocks syncing on the motherboard are suspect at 133 Mhz in my mind per your results. The 4 in 1 driver has no contingency for modems or sound installation. Its strictly the main motherboard components. Download, expand, (there is no install) and run Everest to find specifics on your modem and sound chipsets. Else, open the case and pull those cards and inspect main chip for specifics printed on them. In some cases, a make and model of the card may be embossed on the card. If either is onboard the motherboard, you have to be famliar with it. The motherboard manual may indicate general location. Whether modem or sound is onboard the motherboard is easy to determine, the jacks or ports for either will come from the motherboard, not a card slot on the back of the PC. >> > See enclosed replies - >> > [quoted text clipped - 166 lines] > Mhz is a very radical backstep. The RAM, or the two clocks syncing on > the motherboard are suspect at 133 Mhz in my mind per your results. I really do not believe it is a ram fault. Might be a MB design fault, but I really think it is just a sh.t OS. Windows, even on successful installs is so unstable that I it is always suspect, imnsho. If the ram was bad or any other hardware I would see it with other programs apps.; not so in this case and the ram tested ok. Here is one posters take on a similar problem, but with faster systems: Stephen T Cripps Jan 27 2001, 4:03 am show options Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte From: "Stephen T Cripps" <StCri...@technologist.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:05:35 -0000 Local: Sat, Jan 27 2001 3:05 am Subject: Re: Win98 install on GA-7ZX problem Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse There is another problem with Windows on newer, faster systems: basically the computer is too fast for Windows. When using a fast bus and a fast harddrive with a large cache (typically 2Mb), when Windows closes it sends its final data, including finalising the registry, to the HDD. The cache rapidly fills and gradually (in comparison) starts writing to disk. Windows, happy that the data has all been sent to disk, sends an ATX power-off request to the motherboard, which gladly complies and pulls the plug. The net result is that anything still left in the HDD cache is dumped. The typical symptom is as described: an apparently normal shut-down, followed by a registry scan/repair on start-up. Microsoft has a knowledge base article (Q273017) in which they describe the problem as affecting 900MHz+. I have had 800s fail and I think the key is more bus speed (always 133) and disk transfer speed and cache size (ATA100 and 2Mb+). I can see the problem getting worse with the advent of DDR and 200/266 bus speeds. Microsoft have issued a hot-fix, whilst denying all responsibility. The fix replaces the ifsmgr.vxd (IDE file system manager virtual device driver) with a new one, to recognize a new registry setting. The setting provides a short delay on shut-down, to give the HDD time to finish. I feel this is a poor fix as there is still no actual confirmation that the HDD is done, just an arbitrary delay 'that should be long enough'. If you need the hot-fix file, I need your platform type (only released for Win Me or Win 98SE) and email address. I hope this helps. SignatureStephen T Cripps Proprietor MFS MFSoluti...@cwcom.net www.m-f-solutions.mcmail.com > The 4 in 1 driver has no contingency for modems or sound installation. > Its strictly the main motherboard components. ran various diag. programs including hwinfo and i think (i will check) everest. This modem gives up nothing. generic modem, no mfg. pci modem with nothing written on board. I am pretty certain it is onboard, but the gigabyte site is not too good at telling you which drivers to use. Also many posts from others who have had trouble getting sound under win98 for this board. > Download, expand, (there is no install) and run Everest to find > specifics on your modem and sound chipsets. Else, open the case and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > determine, the jacks or ports for either will come from the > motherboard, not a card slot on the back of the PC. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.