1.) I had no issues installing W98SE on PCs with 1GB RAM. Though I don't have experience with hardware this modern.

2.) The Radeon X700 series should be OK.

My honest view - the only thing that really makes sense for a 98SE build in your list is the Audigy 2 ZS.

Otherwise, you're in major hoops/patches/hacks/drama/etc. PCI-E, SATA, the max RAM, etc. (Been there, done that, tried to build an AGP AM2 system... far less daring than yours... and had no luck until dumping SATA)

I agree with VivienM, this doesn't make sense for a Windows 98 build. For example, just looking up the chipset (P35) it appears chipset are for Windows 2000 and XP, but nothing for 9x.

I suspect trying to get Windows 98 running will involve more headaches than are worth it.

If you want a fast Windows 98 machine, a Pentium 4 / intel 865 chipset would be about as a fast as I would go.

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-02-02, 20:18:

If you want a fast Windows 98 machine, a Pentium 4 / intel 865 chipset would be about as a fast as I would go.

I think an i865 with an 800FSB C2D / Pentium 'dual-core' or Conroe-based single-core Celery, assuming you could find a motherboard, could make a very nice insanely fast but not nightmareish 98SE system. i865/ICH5 tends to have some kind of SATA memory remapping thing that miiiiiiiiight mean you can do 98SE on SATA...

But those motherboards are just... near unobtainium by this point. Were plentiful before the pandemic I gather.

The other option is potentially a 754/etc setup on the Via chipsets with AGP, PATA, etc.

One other thought for the OP: why not see about building an XP system and, if you have a reasonable retro community locally, selling it? You have all the parts for a reasonable though not insane XP system, keep the Audigy 2 ZS and replace it with an X-Fi, and done, good late-2000s system.

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-02-02, 20:18:

I agree with VivienM, this doesn't make sense for a Windows 98 build. For example, just looking up the chipset (P35) it appears chipset are for Windows 2000 and XP, but nothing for 9x.

I made this P35 build a few years back, and it has since become my primary Win9x gaming rig.

It's really great, but it takes a lot of effort to set things up properly. I've chronicled some of my experiences in this thread. Basically, be prepared to apply a bunch of third-party patches and jump through lots of hoops.

Thank you all for your responses. @Joseph_Joestar's post gave me hope, but realistically I cannot justify the prices of the video card I would need to buy to get the required amount of satisfaction from the build. Building a Windows 98 machine is not a dream of mine. In fact, from 1998 to 2002, WIndows 98 and Windows ME gave me so much heartache with blue screens and IRQ conflicts, I think I need to just leave well enough alone. I think I will use the parts for a Windows XP test bench, where I can experiment with drivers, software, oc'ing etc. without damaging my main XP rig.

Barley wrote on 2025-02-03, 04:15:

Thank you all for your responses. @Joseph_Joestar's post gave me hope, but realistically I cannot justify the prices of the video card

As others have mentioned, you can use an X700 or X600 PCIe card instead. Those are currently available for 25-50 USD on eBay, without shipping. You can probably find them even cheaper on other online marketplaces.

While those cards won't be as fast as an X800, they still have plenty of power for Win9x gaming.

Please remember that with any non NT based Windows like Windows 98 no more than one core of your CPU will be used.

Disruptor wrote on 2025-02-03, 07:35:

Please remember that with any non NT based Windows like Windows 98 no more than one core of your CPU will be used.

Which is actually good for some Win9x games that have problems when running on dual-core or multi-core CPUs.

Thief 2 is one such example.

Barley wrote on 2025-02-03, 04:15:

Building a Windows 98 machine is not a dream of mine. In fact, from 1998 to 2002, WIndows 98 and Windows ME gave me so much heartache with blue screens and IRQ conflicts, I think I need to just leave well enough alone.

I can understand that feeling as someone who also had lots of trauma with Win98 back in the day... but the cool thing about retrocomputing is that the stakes are so much lower because you're not actually trying to use the thing for anything real/serious/etc. And you're not potentially having awkward conversations with your parents about how you just made the $2500 family computer unbootable...

I've had a number of retro projects (most of them, in fact?) more or less in pieces on the floor for months, in part due to challenges sourcing parts (every random part you unexpectedly discover you need takes three weeks to get here even without a postal strike... or my second MDD G4 needs a power supply repair that basically implies sending it to a dude in Texas for an insane cost), and... that's okay.

The other thing is - maybe your experiences with 98 were different from mine, but my negative experiences with 98 were largely around multitasking, running out of system resources, needing to reboot frequently as a result, etc. No one will ever do the kind of multitasking I was attempting to do in 2000 (multiple browser windows, multiple IRC clients, email client, newsreader, Winamp, ICQ/AIM, etc... which could force 98SE to need a reboot after 30 minutes due to lack of system resources) on a retro system.

Question: Can I use an unsupported, modern gpu that does not have WIndows 98 drivers just to see if I can get the machine built? As in, can it still display a picture using generic drivers? And then, if successful to that point, get a legitimate Windows 98 card to finich the build?

Barley wrote on 2025-02-03, 23:51:

Question: Can I use an unsupported, modern gpu that does not have WIndows 98 drivers just to see if I can get the machine built? As in, can it still display a picture using generic drivers? And then, if successful to that point, get a legitimate Windows 98 card to finich the build?

How modern do you want to go?

I'm not sure if some of the newest GPUs are UEFI-only; if yes, that'd be a problem.

But... otherwise, yes. Welcome to the world of the 'IBM PC compatible' where everything supports 1987esque standards like 80x25 text mode and 640x480 at... is it 16 colours? Where you'll get in trouble is trying to do anything other than the 1987esque IBM standard, then you need drivers.

(This is why 'Intel' aka x86 aka PC-compatible is such a mess compared to, say, ARM systems like the M1 Max MBP I'm typing this on. There's a huge, huge amount of legacy just built-in to everything. But it's also what allows for modular systems without customizing the OS - if you target the 1987-era baselines + some widely adopted extensions, you can boot up a system enough that it's functional to install drivers for unique parts.)

VivienM wrote on 2025-02-04, 00:25:

How modern do you want to go?

I guess modern was the wrong word. Like an 8400GS or HD4850.