VOGONS


First post, by 65C02

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hey guys, I picked up a socket 7 Pentium MMX-166 PC at a garage sale and have been trying to get an appropriate OS to work on it. I'd like to use Windows 95 or 98, but it won't let me install those OSes. It does work with NT/2000/XP, but those OSes are either not game-friendly (NT4), or too much for the PC to handle (2000/XP).

What happens is this:
-I create a single FAT32 partition with fdisk and format the disk
-I try to install Windows 95 OSR2.1, Windows 98SE, or Windows ME with the default setup options.
-During the File Copy stage of 95/98/ME setup, the computer will freeze. Sometimes the screen gets garbled when it freezes. I tried with a different video card and got the same result.

The RAM and hard disk have both passed tests, so I don't think the hardware is bad. Also I have been able to successfully install DOS 6.22, Windows NT4, Windows 2000 & even Windows XP.

btw, it has 64MB of RAM, 7.5G Quantum hard disk, 8MB ATI Rage Pro, SoundBlaster Live, and Asus AT motherboard.

The motherboard can be upgraded to 256MB of RAM, so if I can't get 95 or 98 to install I could upgrade the memory so that Windows 2000 runs a bit faster. It's not ideal though, as some of my games are 9x-only. You guys have any tips or tricks for me to try out?

Thanks

Reply 1 of 20, by Jorpho

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Are you saying you did a full install of NT, 2000, and XP from scratch, and they all worked perfectly?

Check the motherboard for bulging caps.

Also, which "9x-only" games were you thinking of?

Reply 2 of 20, by keenmaster486

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Could be something obscure wrong with the disk that NTFS mitigates somehow while FAT32 does not.

Some suggestions right off the bat:

--Reseat all cables, RAM, etc. if you haven't already.
--Try a different CD drive.
--Try a different hard drive.
--Try different RAM.

World's foremost 486 enjoyer.

Reply 3 of 20, by 65C02

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Jorpho wrote on 2021-06-07, 21:23:

Are you saying you did a full install of NT, 2000, and XP from scratch, and they all worked perfectly?

Check the motherboard for bulging caps.

Also, which "9x-only" games were you thinking of?

Yes, clean installs of NT, 2000 and XP went off without a hitch. I didn't think XP would work with only 64MB, but when I came back a few hours later it was installed! I think this proves the hardware is OK, since the XP installation process would have stressed the hardware more than 9x, and for much longer.

All of the caps that I can see look good. There are a few smaller ones that I'd have to remove the motherboard or drive cage to get a better look at.

I couldn't get Thief: The Dark Project and Turok 2 to work on Windows 2000.

keenmaster486 wrote on 2021-06-07, 21:51:
Could be something obscure wrong with the disk that NTFS mitigates somehow while FAT32 does not. […]
Show full quote

Could be something obscure wrong with the disk that NTFS mitigates somehow while FAT32 does not.

Some suggestions right off the bat:

--Reseat all cables, RAM, etc. if you haven't already.
--Try a different CD drive.
--Try a different hard drive.
--Try different RAM.

I forgot to mention that I have reseated the RAM, blasted all of the dust out, and tried installing 98 with only the video card inserted. I have also tried installing from a newer DVD drive.

I don't have a different hard drive available atm. The motherboard has EDO and SDRAM slots, but it wouldn't work with any of my SDRAM. I don't have any other EDO sticks unfortunately.

Reply 4 of 20, by keenmaster486

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

My money is still on the disk due to this happening during the file copy process.

However, if it's the RAM, it could have something to do with the disk cache.

There are 64 megs in the system so I assume 4 EDO sticks. Try it with only one pair. Mix and match until it works, if it ever does.

World's foremost 486 enjoyer.

Reply 5 of 20, by Jorpho

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
65C02 wrote on 2021-06-07, 22:56:

I couldn't get Thief: The Dark Project and Turok 2 to work on Windows 2000.

Did you not try any Googling for answers..? TFix ought to work in Windows 2000, and that's been out for ages. I'm not sure about Turok 2, but the GOG forum might be a good place to start, or it looks like there are some older threads here. I expect the GOG release uses dgVoodoo or something.

But getting back to the issue at hand, have you tried copying all the files from the CD to a folder on your hard drive, and then running the installer from there?

Reply 6 of 20, by Woody72

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I had very similar issues getting my Pentium 166 MMX up and running with Win 98SE. I made a Memtest86 boot disk and 2 out of the 4 RAM sticks were faulty, one generated thousands of minor errors and the other one had lots of hard faults. I rebuilt it with just the two sticks that passed the test and it's been fine ever since. Having said that, I experienced a lot of hard lockups once Win 98SE *was* up and running which turned out to be the Pentium 200 MMX I bought from eBay. I replaced it with another Pentium 200 MMX from ebay and it's completely fine now, doesn't lock up at all.

Modern PC: i7-9700KF, 16GB memory, RTX 3060. Proper PC: Pentium 200 MMX, 128MB EDO memory, GeForce2 MX(200).

Reply 7 of 20, by Joseph_Joestar

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Running Memtest is sound advice. It's the first thing I do after putting together a system.

Remember that you need to run it on a loop for ~24 hours in order to get the most reliable results. Not all errors show up after the first pass.

PC#1: Pentium MMX 166 / Soyo SY-5BT / S3 Trio64V+ / Voodoo1 / YMF719 / AWE64 Gold / SC-155
PC#2: AthlonXP 2100+ / ECS K7VTA3 / Voodoo3 / Audigy2 / Vortex2
PC#3: Athlon64 3400+ / Asus K8V-MX / 5900XT / Audigy2
PC#4: i5-3570K / MSI Z77A-G43 / GTX 970 / X-Fi

Reply 8 of 20, by gerry

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Woody72 wrote on 2021-06-08, 07:46:

I had very similar issues getting my Pentium 166 MMX up and running with Win 98SE. I made a Memtest86 boot disk and 2 out of the 4 RAM sticks were faulty, one generated thousands of minor errors and the other one had lots of hard faults. I rebuilt it with just the two sticks that passed the test and it's been fine ever since. Having said that, I experienced a lot of hard lockups once Win 98SE *was* up and running which turned out to be the Pentium 200 MMX I bought from eBay. I replaced it with another Pentium 200 MMX from ebay and it's completely fine now, doesn't lock up at all.

that's interesting about the pentium, such a precision and complex component usually works or doesn't at all, to have one on the cusp of working / not working seems quite rare

less rare (but still rare) with RAM, that seems to have more 'redundancy' in it that allows it to cope with some things apparently ok, then fall over suddenly

in the OP's case the NT OSes worked and the DOS/9x ones didn't - suggesting a specific hardware clash that NT either doesn't encounter or somehow 'deals' with, looks like a lot of component swapping and methodical testing will need to be done

Reply 9 of 20, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
65C02 wrote on 2021-06-07, 22:56:

[...]

I don't have a different hard drive available atm. The motherboard has EDO and SDRAM slots, but it wouldn't work with any of my SDRAM. I don't have any other EDO sticks unfortunately.

That's suspcious... it would help to know exactly which Asus board it is, and which SDRAM DIMMs you tried. If it's an i430VX- or Via VPX-based board and you have big, late DIMMs (or non-JEDEC mess), there's nothing wrong, but in other cases it might be indicative of problems.

Regarding the difference between Win9x vs NT/2k/XP - that could be related to storage drivers. Again, motherboard specs might help here.

Reply 10 of 20, by 65C02

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hey guys, thanks for the tips so far. They've all been really helpful. 😀

So today I tried copying all of my Win95 files to the hard disc and running the installer from there, but again it hard locked during installation.

I have tested the memory with memtest86, but not for 24 hours. More like 4 hrs, actually. 🤣. I'll let it run overnight and see if it comes up with anything.

The exact motherboard model is an Asus TX97-E, and the SDRAM I used came from a dell that just stopped working suddenly. Both are Samsung 256MB PC133. I was hoping to upgrade this garage sale PC to the maximum supported 256MB to make Windows 2000 run a little better. Now that you mention it, it would definitely make sense that to do so, I would need 2x128 rather than 1x256. I believe the memory has to be installed in pairs on this motherboard.

Reply 11 of 20, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

The biggest sticks I would guarantee running on that would be 128MB with 16x64Mbit DRAMs, it won't like 8x256Mbit DRAMs on a 256.... TX chipsets are only gonna cache 64MB btw.

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Reply 12 of 20, by keenmaster486

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Yes it probably will not accept a single 256MB stick.

A single, known good 64 MB stick would probably be the safest option.

World's foremost 486 enjoyer.

Reply 13 of 20, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
65C02 wrote on 2021-06-08, 22:38:

[...]

The exact motherboard model is an Asus TX97-E, and the SDRAM I used came from a dell that just stopped working suddenly. Both are Samsung 256MB PC133. I was hoping to upgrade this garage sale PC to the maximum supported 256MB to make Windows 2000 run a little better. Now that you mention it, it would definitely make sense that to do so, I would need 2x128 rather than 1x256. I believe the memory has to be installed in pairs on this motherboard.

No , the Pentium has a 64b wide bus, so it needs memory in 64b blocks. If you're using 72p SIMMs that are 32b wide you need to install them in pairs. 168p DIMMs are however already 64b wide, so you can install them one at a time.

Now, the i430TX chipset can only cache 64MB, so unless you're actually using everything over that, it will actually perform worse, particularly in Win9x or DOS as they fill up the uncached RAM first (WinNT and derivatives do it the other way round, so far less impact). Officially it accepts max 256MB, with max 2 DIMMs with 16 8Mx8 64Mb chips each (note capitalization: 1B=8b). But... Intel was a bit conservative with their memory support in the late 1990s. Like the similarly-specced i440LX and EX, the i430TX chipset can actually handle 128Mb chips, allowing you to do 256MB per DIMM and 512MB total.

But...

Not many boards could handle it. Some just use the first 64Mb of each chip, others show more, but don't run stable. Now, it really would have helped if you'd given us more detailed information, in particular how many & what type (code written on them) of chips are on those DIMMs, and how much RAM the motherboard actually detects at POST.

There are three ways to get 256MB SDR-SDRAM DIMMS:
1) 16 chips of 128Mb (16Mx8) each. These might work at full capacity on your board.
2) 8 chips of 256Mb (32Mx8) each. These might work, but at best at 1/2 capacity, maybe 1/4.
3) 16 chips of 128Mb (32Mx4) each. Non-JEDEC. Won't POST in any Intel chipset system, and precious few others.

As your system POSTs, 3 is ruled out. 2 probably wouldn't give you problems (just less RAM), so I suspect this is 1.

That gives you three probable causes here, and one likely fix for two of them:
1) your board can't handle the 256MB DIMMs. You need to get smaller DIMMs with smaller chips, i.e. 128MB with 16 chips (64Mb each)
2) your board can handle the 256MB DIMMs separately, but gets unstable when the total size goes over 256MB.
3) your board isn't the problem, handles 512MB fine - but Win9x needs registry hacks to use 512MB and above.

Given you can install WinNT/2k, which are far heavier on the hardware, I don't think it's 1 or 2, which leaves 3. There's an extremely simple solution here: remove one of the DIMMs so you drop down to 256MB total.

*IF* my assumptions based on insufficient information are all correct, that will allow you to install Win9x successfully.

Once again, consider finding a simple 64MB DIMM and using that. It's highly unlikely any software that will run happily on a P166MMX will need that much, and with Win9x having all your ram cached matters.

P.s. if this is the case, and your board actually supports 512MB, could you post your BIOS version (visible in the POST-screen) here? We've had quite a few discussions about i430TX and 512MB. I know it's possible, this would be a clear example.

Reply 14 of 20, by Caluser2000

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

If the ram was faulty I'd expect the reverse to happen-Win9.x load and 32-bit OSs pick up the faulty ram and blue screen, stop error, kernel panic or similar.

Still , it is worth testing the ram all the same.

Last edited by Caluser2000 on 2021-06-09, 00:25. Edited 1 time in total.

There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉

Reply 15 of 20, by jakethompson1

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
65C02 wrote on 2021-06-07, 19:46:

-During the File Copy stage of 95/98/ME setup, the computer will freeze. Sometimes the screen gets garbled when it freezes. I tried with a different video card and got the same result.

Check the BIOS setup for any "virus protection" or "boot sector protection" options. Disable them.

Reply 16 of 20, by FAMICOMASTER

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Reseat all memory, expansion cards, cables, etc.

Something I don't think has been mentioned yet is to make sure there is a voltage regulator present, if you are running the Vcore of that MMX (2.8v) too high (say, 3.3v like a regular Pentium uses) it will overheat and have strange activity like this.
If you have other RAM to try, use it as well. Failed RAM is usually detected during POST but sometimes it can fail with heat.

Quantum 7.5GB hard disk, keep in mind these drives were known for being unreliable when new and that NTFS is a more robust file system than FAT/FAT32, so it may have a large number of bad blocks and could be failing. Try it with another disk if you can, preferably under 8.4GB in case your board does not have the BIOS fix.

Reply 17 of 20, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
FAMICOMASTER wrote on 2021-06-09, 04:45:

Reseat all memory, expansion cards, cables, etc.

Something I don't think has been mentioned yet is to make sure there is a voltage regulator present, if you are running the Vcore of that MMX (2.8v) too high (say, 3.3v like a regular Pentium uses) it will overheat and have strange activity like this.

Asus TX97-E definitely has a (good) VRM. Can go a lot lower than 2.8V too.

If you have other RAM to try, use it as well. Failed RAM is usually detected during POST but sometimes it can fail with heat.

Quantum 7.5GB hard disk, keep in mind these drives were known for being unreliable when new and that NTFS is a more robust file system than FAT/FAT32, so it may have a large number of bad blocks and could be failing. Try it with another disk if you can, preferably under 8.4GB in case your board does not have the BIOS fix.

I'd also expect WinNT-variants to be more sensitive to bad HDD, but it's worth a check if removing a single 256MB DIMM doesn't do the job.

Reply 18 of 20, by Jorpho

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
FAMICOMASTER wrote on 2021-06-09, 04:45:

Something I don't think has been mentioned yet is to make sure there is a voltage regulator present, if you are running the Vcore of that MMX (2.8v) too high (say, 3.3v like a regular Pentium uses) it will overheat and have strange activity like this.

But why would it overheat during Win9x installation and not while installing NT/2K/XP? Especially if it's just copying files on the hard drive?

Reply 19 of 20, by jakethompson1

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Jorpho wrote on 2021-06-09, 17:17:
FAMICOMASTER wrote on 2021-06-09, 04:45:

Something I don't think has been mentioned yet is to make sure there is a voltage regulator present, if you are running the Vcore of that MMX (2.8v) too high (say, 3.3v like a regular Pentium uses) it will overheat and have strange activity like this.

But why would it overheat during Win9x installation and not while installing NT/2K/XP? Especially if it's just copying files on the hard drive?

Guys. I think you will find it's the bios virus warning option as I said, not some deep hardware problem. When the OP uses NT, it has already switched to protected mode and accessing the ide controller directly by the time it wants to change the boot sector, so the virus warning isn't triggered. When the OP uses DOS/FDISK, the screen is in text mode so the virus warning is visible and can be dismissed. The issue is that when Win95 setup tries to update the boot sector, it's in graphical mode, the bios doesn't know this and corrupts the screen. I bet it's an Award BIOS. I thought this was a more widely known issue (or I'm just feeling old? 😜)