Looks to be a well thought out build.
Even 1GB is enough to confuse windows setup but sounds like your already aware of this and the work arounds.
Persaonnly I'd of gone with a SATA drive. Pretty sure BIOS has the option to set SATA to compatibility mode basically turning it into an IDE drive as far as Windows is concerned but if you already have the CF card then I wouldn't loose sleep over it.

wutang61 wrote on 2023-09-20, 01:42:

Recently have started a build of a 9x pc, using some decent hardware for its application.

(4) 1 GB sticks... (probably will be my only issue with this so far. But it was a combo with the board so if one stick will make it through install I can always change it)

Windows 9x have performance issues with more than 2 Gb of RAM. Even with all tricks and hacks, you shouldn't use more.

Kruton 9000 wrote on 2023-09-21, 07:47:

wutang61 wrote on 2023-09-20, 01:42:

Recently have started a build of a 9x pc, using some decent hardware for its application.

(4) 1 GB sticks... (probably will be my only issue with this so far. But it was a combo with the board so if one stick will make it through install I can always change it)

Windows 9x have performance issues with more than 2 Gb of RAM. Even with all tricks and hacks, you shouldn't use more.

I was actually concerned that a single 1gb stick would cause issues and i didn't want to run 2gb to utilize dual channel as that's absolutely unnecessary in my opinion.

Found (4) NOS sticks of 256mb DDR 400 that I'm going to run. I figure 1GB is plenty for anything up to 2000.

wutang61 wrote on 2023-09-29, 22:23:

Found (4) NOS sticks of 256mb DDR 400 that I'm going to run. I figure 1GB is plenty for anything up to 2000.

I'd almost be tempted to suggest you just start off with one or two of your 256 sticks...

I don't know what the RAM requirements for 98SE games are like, but for productivity/daily use back in the day, 128 megs of RAM was too much for 98SE. The 'challenge' to running a Win9x OS is basically managing RAM vs system resources. If you're running, say, Win95 with 8-20 megs of RAM, you're good to go - you'll run out of RAM and start swapping to your HDD like mad before you run out of system resources. But if you have 98SE on, say, 128 megs of RAM, you'll run out of system resources. I remember on my 128 meg machine, if I wasn't careful, I could run out of system resources and need a reboot less than... 30 minutes... after booting up.

Honestly, I almost think you should view 98SE as a non-multi-tasking OS, kinda like pre-System 7 classic Mac OS. Which, I guess, explains why it's so popular for retro (or back in the day) gaming while everybody who tried to use it for multi-tasking has lingering trauma.

Also, one comment/suggestion/etc on your parts list - you've generally gone with high-end, laaaaate-98-compatible, stretching-the-definition-of-period-correct hardware, why not go for a consistent sound card? The Audigy 2 ZS is what lines up with the rest of your parts, not the SB Live! (the original variant of which would be more in-line with a 400MHz PII with an original NVIDIA TNT or a 2D card + Voodoo2 combo, the 5.1 is two years newer).

128 is plenty for anything up to 2000.

The most ram I ever had on 98 was 64mb, and that was a lot at the time. That was on a 333mhz machine with a tnt 2, was an amazing machine at the time.

midicollector wrote on 2023-09-30, 01:23:

The most ram I ever had on 98 was 64mb, and that was a lot at the time. That was on a 333mhz machine with a tnt 2, was an amazing machine at the time.

That was probably the sweet spot for a daily driver Win98 machine. I had a 700MHz PIII with 128 megs (and a TNT2 M64), and ordering that machine with 98SE instead of 2000 was a huge mistake (rectified six months later). Software/hardware compatibility with 2000 was not always the greatest, and 128 megs of RAM was not enough (but hey, PC100 SDRAM was cheap in 2001...), but boy was 2000 a breath of fresh air...

... and yet, interestingly enough, here we are in retroland two decades later, and everyone wants a vintage 98SE machine 😀

(Then again, that's not that surprising. It's often the things that were unsuitable for their primary purpose that turn out to be most valuable as vintage collectibles...)

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-30, 02:18:

Software/hardware compatibility with 2000 was not always the greatest, and 128 megs of RAM was not enough (but hey, PC100 SDRAM was cheap in 2001...), but boy was 2000 a breath of fresh air...

... and yet, interestingly enough, here we are in retroland two decades later, and everyone wants a vintage 98SE machine 😀

Software and hardware aimed at consumers back then often targeted Windows 9x and disregarded NT-based Windows (which was originally for professional environment) until XP, despite Windows 2000 having improved DirectX support. Better DOS compatibility is a big bonus, something that NTVDM wasn't good at.

I agree that the NT kernel was much more stable and reliable though.

Gmlb256 wrote on 2023-09-30, 02:51:

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-30, 02:18:

Software/hardware compatibility with 2000 was not always the greatest, and 128 megs of RAM was not enough (but hey, PC100 SDRAM was cheap in 2001...), but boy was 2000 a breath of fresh air...

... and yet, interestingly enough, here we are in retroland two decades later, and everyone wants a vintage 98SE machine 😀

Software and hardware aimed at consumers back then often targeted Windows 9x and disregarded NT-based Windows (which was originally for professional environment) until XP, despite Windows 2000 having improved DirectX support. Better DOS compatibility is a big bonus, something that NTVDM wasn't good at.

I agree that the NT kernel was much more stable and reliable though.

Yup, I know, I'm still angry, 22 years later, at how I had to write off a <2 year old UMAX flatbed scanner (one of the first USB scanners...) because UMAX didn't feel like supporting 2000 on this model. Not sure if they supported XP; by the time XP rolled out around, I didn't have that scanner anymore. And I'm sure there were some games and other things that didn't make the migration either...

The NT kernel (and being freed from those stupid 64K system resource heaps) was a breath of fresh air - at least with enough RAM, I went from having to reboot every day or two, if not more often, due to being out of system resources to the same hardware (with more RAM) being able to stay up 2-3 months without a reboot. (This was in the days before regularly-scheduled Patch Tuesday updates)

Honestly, with the benefit of hindsight and 28 years' experience on the "IBM" PC-compatible platform, I would put Win2000 as the most transformational OS I've ever encountered. Just night and day between what the same hardware could do the day before on 98SE and what it could do the day after on 2000. For those who never used 2000, I guess they had the same feelings about XP...

... and yet, here we are, trying to build Win98 SE retro systems two decades later. 😀

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-29, 23:24:

I'd almost be tempted to suggest you just start off with one or two of your 256 sticks... […]
Show full quote

wutang61 wrote on 2023-09-29, 22:23:

Found (4) NOS sticks of 256mb DDR 400 that I'm going to run. I figure 1GB is plenty for anything up to 2000.

I'd almost be tempted to suggest you just start off with one or two of your 256 sticks...

I don't know what the RAM requirements for 98SE games are like, but for productivity/daily use back in the day, 128 megs of RAM was too much for 98SE. The 'challenge' to running a Win9x OS is basically managing RAM vs system resources. If you're running, say, Win95 with 8-20 megs of RAM, you're good to go - you'll run out of RAM and start swapping to your HDD like mad before you run out of system resources. But if you have 98SE on, say, 128 megs of RAM, you'll run out of system resources. I remember on my 128 meg machine, if I wasn't careful, I could run out of system resources and need a reboot less than... 30 minutes... after booting up.

Honestly, I almost think you should view 98SE as a non-multi-tasking OS, kinda like pre-System 7 classic Mac OS. Which, I guess, explains why it's so popular for retro (or back in the day) gaming while everybody who tried to use it for multi-tasking has lingering trauma.

Also, one comment/suggestion/etc on your parts list - you've generally gone with high-end, laaaaate-98-compatible, stretching-the-definition-of-period-correct hardware, why not go for a consistent sound card? The Audigy 2 ZS is what lines up with the rest of your parts, not the SB Live! (the original variant of which would be more in-line with a 400MHz PII with an original NVIDIA TNT or a 2D card + Voodoo2 combo, the 5.1 is two years newer).

That’s the plan with the memory. Having 4 sticks of 256 will allow flexibility on whatever ends up being stable.

I will use a single stick for the install process (256mb) and step to 512mb once I get past the critical point and it boots. Some tweaking to the .ini fix any problems with the cache going bonkers and crashing the system but I don’t think 512mb will cause a cascade failure. It’s the smallest amount I can run for dual channel.

The build isn’t absolutely tied to “period correct” it’s in a modern case, with a modern STX power supply. With a chipset and processor from 2003. The sound card is a live 5.1 so that places it around the year 2000.

I went for the latest/newest stuff I could buy reasonably. And have compatibility. most of the period correct stuff has been market targeted to Retro and prices are up 1,000%. The cpu/mobo combo with all the documentation and drivers was 50 bucks. Can’t beat that.

wutang61 wrote on 2023-09-30, 13:49:

That’s the plan with the memory. Having 4 sticks of 256 will allow flexibility on whatever ends up being stable.

I will use a single stick for the install process (256mb) and step to 512mb once I get past the critical point and it boots. Some tweaking to the .ini fix any problems with the cache going bonkers and crashing the system but I don’t think 512mb will cause a cascade failure. It’s the smallest amount I can run for dual channel.

Dual channel is unlikely to make much of a performance difference, but hey, you have the RAM and if it's not breaking anything, why not?

wutang61 wrote on 2023-09-30, 13:49:

The build isn’t absolutely tied to “period correct” it’s in a modern case, with a modern STX power supply. With a chipset and processor from 2003. The sound card is a live 5.1 so that places it around the year 2000.

I went for the latest/newest stuff I could buy reasonably. And have compatibility. most of the period correct stuff has been market targeted to Retro and prices are up 1,000%. The cpu/mobo combo with all the documentation and drivers was 50 bucks. Can’t beat that.

And I guess that's the point - this is a... socket 478... setup, no? 98SE-friendly AGP LGA775 boards are unobtainium or pricy these days, same with PIIIs, a lot of Athlon XP boards died due to the capacitor plague (for some reason, I might be wrong, but it feels like the capacitor plague hit AMD boards particularly hard), but I guess no one has really been thinking about i875. I admit when I first saw your list of parts, I was like 'an Intel-branded board with a flagship chipset from 2003, that seems like a bad idea for a 5-year-old-OS', but hey, the data sheet says it supports 98 SE 😀 But if everybody has that reaction, well, that makes it a great opportunity for you 😀

The other thing is, and that's perhaps my mistake, is judging high-end vs low-end by the standards of 2003 is a silly idea by retro standards. This screams like a high-end build, but other than perhaps your video card, everything else may have been rather low-demand/price. A PIII 733MHz with a Voodoo3 might be less high-end in lots of ways, but probably costs substantially more especially at eBay pricing. So... yes, if you bought the board/CPU for $50, spending $40+ on a sound card does seem somewhat silly.

(That being said, I should note one other thing - I've always had a somewhat irrational love for higher-end sound cards... and have fond memories of the higher-end Creative cards I've owned over the decades. Hence why I am trying to acquire a healthy 2ZS for my hypothetical 98SE project...)

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-30, 14:25:

Dual channel is unlikely to make much of a performance difference, but hey, you have the RAM and if it's not breaking anything, […]
Show full quote

wutang61 wrote on 2023-09-30, 13:49:

That’s the plan with the memory. Having 4 sticks of 256 will allow flexibility on whatever ends up being stable.

I will use a single stick for the install process (256mb) and step to 512mb once I get past the critical point and it boots. Some tweaking to the .ini fix any problems with the cache going bonkers and crashing the system but I don’t think 512mb will cause a cascade failure. It’s the smallest amount I can run for dual channel.

Dual channel is unlikely to make much of a performance difference, but hey, you have the RAM and if it's not breaking anything, why not?

wutang61 wrote on 2023-09-30, 13:49:

The build isn’t absolutely tied to “period correct” it’s in a modern case, with a modern STX power supply. With a chipset and processor from 2003. The sound card is a live 5.1 so that places it around the year 2000.

I went for the latest/newest stuff I could buy reasonably. And have compatibility. most of the period correct stuff has been market targeted to Retro and prices are up 1,000%. The cpu/mobo combo with all the documentation and drivers was 50 bucks. Can’t beat that.

And I guess that's the point - this is a... socket 478... setup, no? 98SE-friendly AGP LGA775 boards are unobtainium or pricy these days, same with PIIIs, a lot of Athlon XP boards died due to the capacitor plague (for some reason, I might be wrong, but it feels like the capacitor plague hit AMD boards particularly hard), but I guess no one has really been thinking about i875. I admit when I first saw your list of parts, I was like 'an Intel-branded board with a flagship chipset from 2003, that seems like a bad idea for a 5-year-old-OS', but hey, the data sheet says it supports 98 SE 😀 But if everybody has that reaction, well, that makes it a great opportunity for you 😀

The other thing is, and that's perhaps my mistake, is judging high-end vs low-end by the standards of 2003 is a silly idea by retro standards. This screams like a high-end build, but other than perhaps your video card, everything else may have been rather low-demand/price. A PIII 733MHz with a Voodoo3 might be less high-end in lots of ways, but probably costs substantially more especially at eBay pricing. So... yes, if you bought the board/CPU for $50, spending $40+ on a sound card does seem somewhat silly.

(That being said, I should note one other thing - I've always had a somewhat irrational love for higher-end sound cards... and have fond memories of the higher-end Creative cards I've owned over the decades. Hence why I am trying to acquire a healthy 2ZS for my hypothetical 98SE project...)

That’s exactly it. This board was not received well when it was launched due to it being “locked down” only a +4% burn in option allowed for OCing with no voltage control. But what is the common denominator with the comments and reviews is it is a rock stable board at factory settings. Exactly what I’m looking for.

Most name brand boards from ASROCK,ASUS,MSI etc. Are all over this sites own WIKI and forum posts across the web for being what you have to buy. The information on them has elevated this pricing to ignorance. If you find a working board from any of them you will pay hundreds for just board, no drivers, no documentation. If you are lucky, you’ll get one with a celeron.

Overclocking a 3.2 ghz pentium on windows 9x is utterly pointless as it’s already hundreds if not thousands of times faster then the hardware 9x was launched on.

It’s a black PCB Board and it looks fantastic with native support from Intel for 98SE. It’s nice sweet spot.

wutang61 wrote on 2023-09-30, 16:08:

That’s exactly it. This board was not received well when it was launched due to it being “locked down” only a +4% burn in option allowed for OCing with no voltage control. But what is the common denominator with the comments and reviews is it is a rock stable board at factory settings. Exactly what I’m looking for.

Yup, I've always thought highly of Intel desktop boards, though I think I've only owned one. Part of the issue is that they could be relatively difficult to get - your average enthusiast-flavoured computer store isn't necessarily going to stock them. But generally rock solid and excellent.

And the thing is, what sells motherboards are reviews from the usual web sites. What are the usual web sites looking for more than anything? Overclockability. So if you want to stick that "AnandTech editors' choice" or whatever sticker on your box, well, it needs to overclock well.

It's a shame that Intel got out of the motherboard business, but I understand it - with the near-total-disappearance of store-built non-gaming desktop machines (15+ years ago, any computer store would sell boring computers in boring cases for boring purposes. Now? It's all gamery RGB stuff), there's just no market for boring reliable anymore.

Also, didn't Intel yank a lot of drivers/BIOSes/etc from their web site? The usual Taiwanese suspects (Gigabyte, Asus, MSI, etc) may have their flaws, but if you need a BIOS update for an 18 (or 25) year old motherboard, they've still got that on their web site today. Same with drivers, etc.

That being said, there's another reason Intel boards wouldn't be popular for retro use, which is that for retro use, you often most want the weird combination, e.g. the LGA775/i865 AGP boards. LGA775 processors were never "officially" supposed to be used on i865 chipsets, but hey, the bus is electrically compatible, so, sure, someone in Taiwan is going to make a motherboard to let you buy a new CPU and keep your DDR1 RAM and AGP video card. And then, wait a second, the next generation of LGA775 CPUs needs different voltage regulators but is again otherwise compatible, so a smaller number of folks in Taiwan are going to offer a board like that, etc, until eventually only Asrock is doing it. And then that Asrock board becomes a legend. Intel would have never offered motherboards with mismatched components like that. Similarly, I think Taiwan has made things like socket 370 440BX boards, AGP AM2 boards, dual-socket boards for non-officially-dual-processor processors, i815 Tualatin boards, etc., all things outside what Intel (or AMD) wanted to see exist.

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-30, 16:57:

Yup, I've always thought highly of Intel desktop boards, though I think I've only owned one. Part of the issue is that they coul […]
Show full quote

wutang61 wrote on 2023-09-30, 16:08:

That’s exactly it. This board was not received well when it was launched due to it being “locked down” only a +4% burn in option allowed for OCing with no voltage control. But what is the common denominator with the comments and reviews is it is a rock stable board at factory settings. Exactly what I’m looking for.

Yup, I've always thought highly of Intel desktop boards, though I think I've only owned one. Part of the issue is that they could be relatively difficult to get - your average enthusiast-flavoured computer store isn't necessarily going to stock them. But generally rock solid and excellent.

And the thing is, what sells motherboards are reviews from the usual web sites. What are the usual web sites looking for more than anything? Overclockability. So if you want to stick that "AnandTech editors' choice" or whatever sticker on your box, well, it needs to overclock well.

It's a shame that Intel got out of the motherboard business, but I understand it - with the near-total-disappearance of store-built non-gaming desktop machines (15+ years ago, any computer store would sell boring computers in boring cases for boring purposes. Now? It's all gamery RGB stuff), there's just no market for boring reliable anymore.

Also, didn't Intel yank a lot of drivers/BIOSes/etc from their web site? The usual Taiwanese suspects (Gigabyte, Asus, MSI, etc) may have their flaws, but if you need a BIOS update for an 18 (or 25) year old motherboard, they've still got that on their web site today. Same with drivers, etc.

That being said, there's another reason Intel boards wouldn't be popular for retro use, which is that for retro use, you often most want the weird combination, e.g. the LGA775/i865 AGP boards. LGA775 processors were never "officially" supposed to be used on i865 chipsets, but hey, the bus is electrically compatible, so, sure, someone in Taiwan is going to make a motherboard to let you buy a new CPU and keep your DDR1 RAM and AGP video card. And then, wait a second, the next generation of LGA775 CPUs needs different voltage regulators but is again otherwise compatible, so a smaller number of folks in Taiwan are going to offer a board like that, etc, until eventually only Asrock is doing it. And then that Asrock board becomes a legend. Intel would have never offered motherboards with mismatched components like that. Similarly, I think Taiwan has made things like socket 370 440BX boards, AGP AM2 boards, dual-socket boards for non-officially-dual-processor processors, i815 Tualatin boards, etc., all things outside what Intel (or AMD) wanted to see exist.

You still can find great motherboards made today from other vendors that are not drown in RGB and gaming branding. My x79 system uses a Sabertooth from ASUS. That board has ran 1.5+v and gross overclocks for 13 years now. Only integrated audio and the marvel controller have crapped out.

The “TUF” brand has since been downgraded into an entry level item. But then it was postured as a workstation board. Asus keeps this alive today with the “PRO art” line. No fast and the furious styling. Purely a creator/workstation design. Would be what I would buy today if I was looking to replace that system.

To me, having a 775 board just allows more growth into the XP era. While also having the ability to have boot drives for the older OS’s. But there’s always a trade off. You’ll sacrifice compatibility for compatibility.

At best you have a Mediocre XP system with hoops to jump through for 9x compatibility. IMO there are much better and cheaper hardware to make a “balls to the wall” XP build.

One of the first choices I made was socket 478. It was tail end with wash over into some “modern” connectivity. Finding a board with the documentation, and driver discs with the box was a critical attribute to me and that’s what I found.

It’s still very much in its “debug and does the damn thing work phase” but I’m very pleased so far.

Seems to be pretty average hardware for a Win9x build these days.
Apart from the RAM, which you later talk about, it looks like it will be a solid performer. On paper at least.