the_ultra_code wrote:

Okay, I have a lot I want to review. […]
Show full quote

Okay, I have a lot I want to review.

squiggly wrote:

The only other thing I would add is get a hot swap HDD caddy.

I plan to buy a heavily discounted Deepcool Tesseract case from Newegg, which has that! 😀

agent_x007 wrote:

1*) If 1024MB installation fails (it can work), go with 512MB of RAM (install Windows normally and on first Desktop boot copy/add himemx to config.sys and add/modify lines) :

Don't you mean "system.ini", which this website and this one say to add such lines to? If not, why use "config.sys" over "system.ini"? Just somewhat confused. 😀

1) does that deepcool have an externally facing hot swap bay in one of the 5.25" bays? that's what I mean. not internal hot swaps. its a pain to remove the case panel just to extract a hard drive, especially if the case in inside a desk cavity.

2) system.ini for the the MaxPages/vcache settings. HIMEMX is a driver, and the place to load drivers on boot is through config.sys.

squiggly wrote:

1) does that deepcool have an externally facing hot swap bay in one of the 5.25" bays? that's what I mean. not internal hot swaps. its a pain to remove the case panel just to extract a hard drive, especially if the case in inside a desk cavity.

Sadly, no, although I never thought of having one. Although, it's a nice idea.

squiggly wrote:

2) system.ini for the the MaxPages/vcache settings. HIMEMX is a driver, and the place to load drivers on boot is through config.sys.

That makes sense.

So, after everyone's responses, here's my plan on what I am going to do: I am going to edit "system.ini" and change the VCache value to accompany the 1GB of RAM that will be present in this build, but, if that does not work out well, then I will use a tool such as HIMEMX. How does that sound?

the_ultra_code wrote:

So, after everyone's responses, here's my plan on what I am going to do: I am going to edit "system.ini" and change the VCache value to accompany the 1GB of RAM that will be present in this build, but, if that does not work out well, then I will use a tool such as HIMEMX. How does that sound?

Just make sure you have plan to edit system.ini *during* the install process, as early as possible. These means having an DOS mode editor you can run during the install. I found some edit programs on the CD could not be run due to them being windows mode programs. During install you are stuck in 16-bit DOS mode.

One cheeky way of dealing with this is to *not* complete the Win98 install. Basically on the first reboot, swap the CD to WinXP, then install XP normally on the last partition. It will already recognize Win98 and set up a boot menu for it, as Win98 has already installed it's own boot sector on the first partition. Once you have installed XP you can use notepad on XP to fiddle to your hearts content with any file on the Win98 partition (make sure all files are saved as ASCII not UTF8). You probably also want to copy the WIN98 folder from the CD to the first partition to avoid having to "insert the win98 cd" during driver installation later (trust me this is a big pain). Then once you are done, restart into Win98, and it's own installation should pick up from where it left off last time. And then once you are done installing it and all the drivers, don't forget to take partition images of both 98 and XP so you don't have to go through the install process ever again.

Good advice squiggly!

Man, it's funny how this topic has swerved far from the originally intended path! 😀

the_ultra_code wrote:

Are you saying that with Windows XP SP3 1GB of RAM is too little, because Asaki said the following:

Asaki wrote:

I doubt there are many games that would benefit from 2 gigs of RAM in XP that would actually run on that kind of machine. I've run XP with 512-768 and the only thing that really suffers is video playback and modern day web browsing.

? I am not trying to start another debate ( 😀 ), I just want to know, only for pre- and up-to-2003 gaming (see below), will 1GB be fine?

You'll be fine. I had few issues with Windows XP and 1GB of RAM for stuffs up to year 2008. It's just that software (and webpages) at that time hardly take up as much resources as they are now.

the_ultra_code wrote:

I am probably wrong, but wouldn't you want the same exact model stick of RAM in every DIMM slot, or does it only matter for each pair of dual-channel DIMM slots (for example, having two sticks of Corsair memory of one model in the first pair of dual-channel DIMM slots, and, say, a different model of Corsair sticks of RAM, or, let's even go as far as to say two sticks of G.Skills sticks in the second pair of dual-channel DIMM slots)?

If those memories are of the same size, same form factor (chip package, capacity and rated specs) and same timing then it's very likely they'll work out. I think most DDR-400 memory are not much different for a given size (1GB for example, are often 16 chips with a 3-3-3-8 timing). They're often interchangeable from my experience, but you're recommended to use the same model to ensure best performance and stability.

the_ultra_code wrote:

:( :cry: […]
Show full quote

squiggly wrote:

Work on the assumption your win98 will die once a year (that used to be the old advice on how often to reinstall 98).

🙁 😢

squiggly wrote:

Constantly reinstalling windows is thr biggest turn-off of retro computing, but if you are smart about backing up partition images you should only ever have to install it once. I actually use EaseUS to fully prepare the partitions for install and then image them every time I make a big change. I am not kidding when I say this might be the difference between enjoying your retro build and wanting to give it up. Also, get some ide/sata adapters and just use modern sata drives of any capacity - so long as the first partition is for win98 (or msdos) and small enough (<120gb for 98, <2gb for Dos) it wont care (or see) what follows it.

I need to do it again, now that I have done a lot since, but I have cloned my Windows 98 SE partition, which encompasses the whole capacity of my HDD in my first P3 retro gaming machine (the one linked in my "signature") using Clonezilla and an 160GB HDD hooked up to the motherboard's USB port via a USB-to-SATA adapter cable. Yeah, I had to reinstall Win98 twice on that computer, once because I accidentally deleted the USB drivers while troubleshooting something (*face palm*) and a second time while trying to understand why I would get a blue-screen when entering MS-DOS mode via the shutdown menu (it turns out the culprit is my USB/PS/2 mouse whenever it is plugged into the motherboard's USB port, whose VXD driver I guess does not fully unload itself, so as a result I get that error; however, whenever I actually restart into MS-DOS mode via a .pif file, no errors occur with the mouse plugged in, and works even in the USB port!; any who, I digress). And you say that the Win98 partition should be before any other OS partition on the HDD (so, say, installing XP in a partition that is "in the front" of the HDD with its partition, and then installing Win98 and having its partition "after" it will not work?)?

I used to keep Win9x compatibility as a requirement back then, but eventually dropped that idea and moved to DOS/WinXP builds exclusively as Win98 turned out to be more restrictive about memory and device drivers than DOS itself.

BSoDs and program errors under Win98 were quite common that I started to feel uncomfortable recently because with my current builds (DOS+Windows XP/Vista/7/...) I hardly encounter as many those as I used to. Also, Win9x was hard to maintain for dual-booting if you constantly have to reinstall Windows, which solves little problems and could in turn introduce more (especially with updated system components, where you'll have to click yes on everything that it complains about being newer, plus you might also need to take care of rebuilding the bootloaders).

While Windows 9x was needed for some games at that time, for popular titles, there are already ready solutions for running them under XP.
There are some stuffs that don't like WinXP, though. StarCraft mods utilizing StarGraft was such example, that chickens out with a "not a valid Win32 application" error when running on Win2K or later.

the_ultra_code wrote:

agent_x007 wrote:

1*) If 1024MB installation fails (it can work), go with 512MB of RAM (install Windows normally and on first Desktop boot copy/add himemx to config.sys and add/modify lines) :

Don't you mean "system.ini", which this website and this one say to add such lines to? If not, why use "config.sys" over "system.ini"? Just somewhat confused. 😀

Back then M$ used to suggest the system.ini method but it's not often stable as that method only limits what Windows sees and nothing else.
In fact, there are several ways to limit RAM:

1. HIMEMX method. This is the easiest and also a stable method as it limits the memory everything sees so there should be nothing that could do wrong.
2. XMSDSK method. Basically this involves setting whatever beyond as a RAMDisk and then setup the swap file to take up the whole RAMDisk created. This can make full use of the system RAM at the expense of putting the system into MS-DOS Compatibility mode. You may consider not to set up the swap file there to avoid MS-DOS Compatibility mode penalty, but you cannot use the RAMDisk directly, as it'll BSoD. Otherwise, it can be safer than HIMEMX as the extra RAM are effectively "taken" and completely inaccessible to anything else so apps are guaranteed to be using the memory within the safe range. (NOTE: To actually make use of the RAMDisk, you need RLoew's non-XMS RAMDisk driver which is not freely available)
3. system.ini method. The MaxPhysPage parameter can limit memory, but apparently it only limits the memory what Windows sees and other stuffs might still see the memory beyond that point and cause issues. Also, if you want it to work with Safe Mode you also need to set this in the system.cb file (which is used for Safe Mode) as well.

LSS10999 wrote:

Back then M$ used to suggest the system.ini method but it's not often stable as that method only limits what Windows sees and no […]
Show full quote

Back then M$ used to suggest the system.ini method but it's not often stable as that method only limits what Windows sees and nothing else.
In fact, there are several ways to limit RAM:

1. HIMEMX method. This is the easiest and also a stable method as it limits the memory everything sees so there should be nothing that could do wrong.
2. XMSDSK method. Basically this involves setting whatever beyond as a RAMDisk and then setup the swap file to take up the whole RAMDisk created. This can make full use of the system RAM at the expense of putting the system into MS-DOS Compatibility mode. You may consider not to set up the swap file there to avoid MS-DOS Compatibility mode penalty, but you cannot use the RAMDisk directly, as it'll BSoD. Otherwise, it can be safer than HIMEMX as the extra RAM are effectively "taken" and completely inaccessible to anything else so apps are guaranteed to be using the memory within the safe range. (NOTE: To actually make use of the RAMDisk, you need RLoew's non-XMS RAMDisk driver which is not freely available)
3. system.ini method. The MaxPhysPage parameter can limit memory, but apparently it only limits the memory what Windows sees and other stuffs might still see the memory beyond that point and cause issues. Also, if you want it to work with Safe Mode you also need to set this in the system.cb file (which is used for Safe Mode) as well.

What you said regarding the "system.ini" method is interesting, painting it in the light of being leaky, a little complicated, and rather primitive. It has changed my mind about using that method.

So, am I safe to say that all Windows 98 game developers, aware of the poor memory handling of the OS, made sure that none of their games used more than 512MB? If that is the case, I will definitely use HIMEMX. Although the XMSDSK method has more potential, I think it is plagued by its complexity and its dependence on non-free components to make complete use of it.

I have to say, you guys are awesome! I would have never ever known about HIMEMX or XMSDSK without you all. For that, I thank you! I am sure you will have made this P4 build of mine less of a nuisance and more of a source of joy (which, by the way, is almost ready to be assembled! Watch out for a link to it in my signature in the very near future!). 😀

the_ultra_code wrote:

What you said regarding the "system.ini" method is interesting, painting it in the light of being leaky, a little complicated, and rather primitive. It has changed my mind about using that method.

So, am I safe to say that all Windows 98 game developers, aware of the poor memory handling of the OS, made sure that none of their games used more than 512MB? If that is the case, I will definitely use HIMEMX. Although the XMSDSK method has more potential, I think it is plagued by its complexity and its dependence on non-free components to make complete use of it.

I have to say, you guys are awesome! I would have never ever known about HIMEMX or XMSDSK without you all. For that, I thank you! I am sure you will have made this P4 build of mine less of a nuisance and more of a source of joy (which, by the way, is almost ready to be assembled! Watch out for a link to it in my signature in the very near future!). 😀

Good luck on getting the new build up and running 😀

Generally 1GB is still under the hard limit (~1.125GB) for Windows 98, although it's kind of a soft limit as I experienced instabilities with RAM between 1GB-1.125GB. 768-1024MB is usually okay. It's just that DOS prompts could fail if you have RAM more than 512MB, but you're more likely to be booting to real DOS to run those programs anyway as some programs require real DOS. If you use HIMEMX you can experiment freely with different settings without having to physically remove any, you just need to change the limit value in CONFIG.SYS and reboot Windows, until you find the best (most stable) value for your purpose.

You can't really say that Windows 98 game developers are aware of the memory limitation. Most likely they aren't. It's just that not many computers at that time (when Windows 98 was still dominant) had that much memory that could reach the limit, and they also need to make sure the program can properly run within a designated system requirement that is acceptable for the majority of people. You can still run out of memory if you run too many stuffs (like opening too many webpages).

As for XMSDSK method, basically it's just a different principle compared to the HIMEMX method (which leaves the extra RAM unmanaged and invisible), that instead of limiting available memory at XMS driver level, you use something to actually take up the extra RAM so they can never be accessed. As long as you don't actually write to the RAMDisk you'll be fine. Currently the freely available RAMDisk drivers including XMSDSK are all XMS-based which will have issues with Windows 98, causing BSoD when trying to write to the drive, as XMS-based RAMDisks need to use the system arena which is the cause of the BSoD.

Be warned that you cannot use the system.ini memory limit parameter (MaxPhysPage) if you use XMSDSK. The system will crash.

Another option, if dual booting with XP or another OS that needs a ton of RAM, is to find a system with a BIOS option that limits visible memory to 256MB. Dell had a few machines that did this and it works well with limiting what Windows 98SE can see. It changes the e820 memory table reported by the BIOS, so its very compatible compared to straight software workarounds.

Honestly, the biggest problem I've had with 98SE on modern boxes is with the brain dead esdi506.pdr IDE drivers. They absolutely hate SATA controllers running in legacy mode and show more then 2 IDE channels. Whats really needed is a Windows 9x port of UniATA to bypass that whole mess. Also, 98SE is horribly behaved on machines that lack PS/2 ports for the keyboard and mouse. You need at least one of them on a real port.... even serial would do for the mouse. Otherwise the OS boots, deactivates the BIOS emulation for USB input (since its stack is taking over) and leaves you stranded without any input devices!

For Vcache limit, remember that magic number is actually Vcache + AGP aperture < 512MB - so with an AGP aperture of up to 256MB, 256MB is safer for Vcache

*moved*

Well, I'll just post my solution once again:

1. Put HIMEMX.EXE to Windows folder
2. Put this at the beginning of CONFIG.SYS:
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\HIMEMX.EXE /MAX=1048576
3. Install the Vcache patch from here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/105373-vcache-fix-attempt/
4. Remove any modifications from System.ini - you don't need any tweaks to system.ini anymore

It's that simple, the Vcache patch makes it so you don't need to edit system.ini at all.

I'm late to this party, but I'll post my experiences.

- My KT7A systems running Win98SE work better with 512mb RAM. They actually benchmark slower in 3DMark2001SE if I have 768mb installed.

- As others have mentioned, 256mb RAM for Win98SE is just fine as well. Not too many games of that era actually need more than 256mb RAM, and some actually have problems with too much RAM, such as Longbow II. 256mb RAM for Win98SE seems to be the point of diminishing returns.

- 1GB RAM for WinXP SP3 is just fine in my Athlon 64 3400+ system with a GeForce 6800 GT. If I were using an Athlon II X2 or Core 2 Duo, I would want 2gb RAM (or more) as well as a better video card.

- I dislike dual-booting Win98SE and WinXP. I designed my Win98SE systems for Win98SE, so they're optimized for that. Likewise, I designed my WinXP systems for WinXP and they're optimized accordingly. I don't want to compromise or make sacrifices for the convenience of having a do-it-all dual-booter. For example:

I originally set up my Athlon 64 3400+ as a Win98SE/WinXP dual-booter. To run Win98SE at its best, I need to have an FX 5950 Ultra and 1st generation SB Live (CT4620) in the machine. For my best WinXP experience, I need to have the GeForce 6800 GT and an Audigy 2 ZS installed. With the FX 5950 Ultra and SB Live installed, my WinXP experience is diminished. With the 6800 GT and Audigy 2 ZS installed, my Win98SE experience is diminished. This is what I mean by compromises and sacrifices for the sake of convenience. In the end, I decided to just remove Win98SE and keep my 6800 GT installed. It works better as a WinXP PC anyway. I have other PCs that are better suited for running Win98SE. If I absolutely must use a single keyboard and mouse for the two systems, it's not hard to use a KVM switch. I've been using this Belkin unit for years and it works really well.

If you really want to dual-boot, then I recommend PLOP Boot Manager. It's the one I like best nowadays because it's just so configurable (and free). Other good ones I've used in the past are Partition Commander and the OS/2 Warp 4 boot manager. You don't need to have OS/2 installed to use its boot manager. The Partition Commander software I have is v6, but there are newer versions out there.

KT7AGuy wrote:

- I dislike dual-booting Win98SE and WinXP. I designed my Win98SE systems for Win98SE, so they're optimized for that. Likewise, I designed my WinXP systems for WinXP and they're optimized accordingly. I don't want to compromise or make sacrifices for the convenience of having a do-it-all dual-booter.

That is the opposite of what I'm doing : LINK 😁
Besicly : I want a system to "do it all" because I'm very space constrained in my room.
"The catch" with this approach is that you usually have to throw some money at the problems you encounter to bypass hardware/software limitations of Win98SE (example : 512MB DDR3 memory stick/r_lowe patch).

agent_x007 wrote:

That is the opposite of what I'm doing : LINK 😁
Besicly : I want a system to "do it all" because I'm very space constrained in my room.
"The catch" with this approach is that you usually have to throw some money at the problems you encounter to bypass hardware/software limitations of Win98SE (example : 512MB DDR3 memory stick/r_lowe patch).

Sir, I salute you for finding a way to make that all work. Seriously, I think it was a huge challenge and significant accomplishment. I can't imagine how much trial and error you had to go through across six different operating systems before you found the right hardware combination to make it all work smoothly together. To me though, it feels an awful lot like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/con … 81_gallery.html

I'll admit, I have way too many retro/legacy boxes. At some point, I'm probably going to have to get rid of some of them. I think I can get down to 4 boxes to cover everything from DOS through WinXP.

Thanks 😀
It wasn't easy, withour Win 2k and Win 7 would be easier (first one doesn't like Quadro FX 1300/6800 GT and second one "freaks out" when sees two NV GPUs that one driver can't support at the same time.

To you it feels "photoshoped" ?
Well, that's why I recorded more than one video (done in one LONG take) 😉

agent_x007 wrote:

To you it feels "photoshoped" ?
Well, that's why I recorded more than one video (done in one LONG take) 😉

Noooooo 😉

Check out the article I linked. It's about making a whole lot of furniture fit in a very small apartment. Everything kind-of slides into or out-of cabinets on rails, including the kitchen and bed.

I was trying to say that your PC is an all-in-one solution in which every part must work perfectly with every other part in a very small volume of space for a variety of tasks and applications.

I was trying to say that your PC is an all-in-one solution in which every part must work perfectly with every other part in a very small volume of space for a variety of tasks and applications.

Oh !
Sorry I didn't got that... (article has too big pics, and too small actual text).

Next time, try "works like swiss knife but requires mechanical watch-like precision for everything to work properly" 😉

Hi guys. It's been a while. I wanted to respond sooner, but I could not get to it. Anywho, I'm here now. Hopefully this topic is not too devoid of activity yet.

First of all, Merry Christmas to all those that celebrate it!

Okay, moving on. I want to recap on just a few more things said in this topic, and then probably will "call it a day", since this topic has probably reached the end of its life by this point, and anything else should be posted on a new topic, since this topic has swerved from it's original purpose, which I guess is okay, but, you know...

Squiggly, regarding your earlier post on how to dual-boot XP and Win98:

squiggly wrote:

You probably also want to copy the WIN98 folder from the CD to the first partition to avoid having to "insert the win98 cd" during driver installation later (trust me this is a big pain).

Already did this with my P3 build, and plan to continue doing it, so I never experience that problem. 😀

Also, as far as I know, fdisk will create the largest partition possible. Because Windows 98 has a limit of 120GB, will it create a partition of 120GB or the entirety of my HDD (which is a Seagate Barracude 7200.9 SATA3 250GB HDD)? Also, is there any way to tell fdisk to make a specifically sized partition?

Matth79:

Matth79 wrote:

For Vcache limit, remember that magic number is actually Vcache + AGP aperture < 512MB - so with an AGP aperture of up to 256MB, 256MB is safer for Vcache

First of all, according to this article, your AGP aperture should be 64MB, and no more than 128MB, so shouldn't your Vcache value that you mentioned be higher?

MrMateczko:

MrMateczko wrote:

Well, I'll just post my solution once again: […]
Show full quote

Well, I'll just post my solution once again:

1. Put HIMEMX.EXE to Windows folder
2. Put this at the beginning of CONFIG.SYS:
DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\HIMEMX.EXE /MAX=1048576
3. Install the Vcache patch from here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/105373- ... x-attempt/
4. Remove any modifications from System.ini - you don't need any tweaks to system.ini anymore

It's that simple, the Vcache patch makes it so you don't need to edit system.ini at all.

I might just do it like how you said. Thanks!

KT7AGuy, while I understand your points, I kind of side more with agent_x007 (partly due to how much I want to spend, and how much room I have, since I'm going to college; I'm a youngling, okay! 😀 ). I will say, though:

KT7AGuy wrote:

- As others have mentioned, 256mb RAM for Win98SE is just fine as well. Not too many games of that era actually need more than 256mb RAM, and some actually have problems with too much RAM, such as Longbow II. 256mb RAM for Win98SE seems to be the point of diminishing returns.

That's interesting. I might just remove one of the two 256MB RAM sticks out of my P3 build if I encounter any problems like that.

Also, my P4 build is almost complete! It's just missing a Gotek USB floppy emulator. Everything else works, though. Be on the lookout for it in my "signature" or elsewhere on vogons!

the_ultra_code wrote:

Also, as far as I know, fdisk will create the largest partition possible. Because Windows 98 has a limit of 120GB, will it create a partition of 120GB or the entirety of my HDD (which is a Seagate Barracude 7200.9 SATA3 250GB HDD)? Also, is there any way to tell fdisk to make a specifically sized partition?

I can't remember the size limit for Win98SE's FDISK, but I think it was something like 37GB. It has problems with anything larger than that. It is usually better to use percentages rather than hard numbers for large partitions. Check out my generic Win98SE guide here.

Edit: I was incorrect. Win98SE's FDISK can partition drives up to 137GB. However, FDISK cannot "see" larger than 64GB. The workaround for it is to use percentages rather than actual numbers. For example, if you have a 120GB drive and want two ~60GB partitions, you'll choose 50% for the first partition, and then you just use the remaining space for the second partition.

More info here:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/1840 … t32-file-system

There is an official MS fix here, but I've never tried it:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2630 … rger-than-64-gb

Okay, an update.

I officially "close" this topic, as it has been undergoing a nose-dive down a different path of conversation, and anything related to dual-booting WinXP and Win98 will be posted here.

KT7AGuy, if you could help me on that new topic which I linked, that would be great!