Officially win 98 supports 512mb patches can increase this but it becomes increasingly unstable with more ram. The other limiting factor is that win98 is 32 bit which is limited to about 4gb address size 98 can't get anywhere near that.
Ati x850xt or Nvidia 7900gtx as noted elsewhere on vogons.
As for chipset drivers, maybe
https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2019 … ers-9x.html?m=1

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-19, 09:12:

[*]Does a PCIe Ethernet card exist that has W98 drivers?

Windows 98SE PCI-E graphic card support

sydres wrote on 2026-01-19, 09:53:

The other limiting factor is that win98 is 32 bit which is limited to about 4gb address size 98 can't get anywhere near that. At […]
Show full quote

The other limiting factor is that win98 is 32 bit which is limited to about 4gb address size 98 can't get anywhere near that.
Ati x850xt or Nvidia 7900gtx as noted elsewhere on vogons.
As for chipset drivers, maybe
https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2019 … ers-9x.html?m=1

Thank you for the link, I will try the chipset drivers later.

AFAIK Ati x850xt or Nvidia 7900gtx are PCie x16, as I specified I need <= x8 as the board only has x8 slots

I am more than well aware x32 can only address 4GB of virtual address space, this is totally different to how much physical memory a x32 OS can support, Windows 2000 x32 Advanced Server happily supports at least 7.75GB, see the attached. Further XP boots with 8GB installed and only uses 3.25GB as does NT4, I just wish W9x to boot with all 8GB installed so I don't need to keep swapping DIMMs. I am happy to tell W98 to only use 1GB, 2GB or 3GB if I need to.

I have a W9x system which happily runs with 2GB which I installed many years ago. I can't remember/find which patch I used, I was and am looking for recommended patches.

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-19, 09:12:

Is there a patch such that I can have 8GB of memory installed and if so how much will W98 use?

You'll need Rloew's 4GB memory patch (PATCHMEM). That allows you to use up to 4GB minus system arena, so usually 3.25-3.5GB.

The size of system arena varies depending on the motherboard. There are boards with an unusual size for system arena. On my X99M Killer/3.1 I have only ~1.4GB RAM below 4GB.

Most recent releases of patcher9x also included rloew's memory patch, though I'm not sure if it also included support for optional options (e.g. /A and /M) that were on rloew's original patch. In my case I need at least /M option for PATCHMEM.

Still, Win98 doesn't and will never be able to support PAE so there's no way you can make use of memory above 4GB there. SweetLow's RAMDRV4M might be useful for making use of those RAM.

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-19, 09:12:

Does a PCIe <= x8 GPU exist that has W98 drivers or will run @ 1024 × 768 with the Super VGA driver?

I don't think any ATI/nVidia PCIe cards of Win9x period had PCIe <=x8 variants. Looks like Matrox G550 had a PCIe x1 variant. That model had Win95/98 drivers.

For newer cards, some low-end, low-profile cards had PCIe x1 variants. And some very recent low to mid end video cards are electrically PCIe x4 or x8 but still physically x16 so it cannot be inserted into your board, unless the card has notches to permit such.

There are other server boards including those from Supermicro, that have PCIe x8 slot with one end open so a PCIe x16 can be plugged in without problems. This isn't the case with your board, though, from the looks of the pictures I could find online about it.

If you have the necessary tool and skill you may try cutting the end of a PCIe x8 slot open so a PCIe x16 can be inserted... that can be very risky, however.

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-19, 09:12:

- Do W98 drivers exist for Intel PRO/1000 PM/PL Network Controllers? The device IDs are 108C + 109A, I have found some PRO/1000 drivers, but not PM or PL.
- Does a PCIe Ethernet card exist that has W98 drivers?

I'm not sure about PCIe but there are a good amount of Gigabit NICs with Win98 support.

Many NIC vendors supported NDIS2 for quite a while. So unless your card is too new there's a chance your NIC has NDIS2 drivers which you can try. With proper configurations it should work.

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-19, 09:12:

Do Intel 3200 + ICH9R chipset drivers exist for W98?

I don't think there were official chipset drivers but recent patcher9x releases included unofficial chipset INFs by LoneCrusader, which can be found in EXTRA\INTELINF in its floppy image. It also has rloew's SATA and AHCI drivers included.

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-19, 10:53:

On my X99M Killer/3.1 I have only ~1.4GB RAM below 4GB.
Win98 doesn't and will never be able to support PAE.

Thank you, my ASRock X79 Champion only has 1.00GB below 4GB!, I guess that's the price I pay for having 4 GPUs. Given someone got NT4 for PowerPC running on PowerMACs you never know, one day someone may get PAE working on W9x. That said I don't really care, if I need a system with lots of memory then my 128GB ASUS WS X299 Sage usually has enough, it not I use my 1.50TB HP DL580 Gen8.

I installed the patch and now both SIV and W98 report 3.25GB, strangely SIV reports 1.25GB in use !, it used to be 202MB. The paging file size is also zero, on W9x can you have multiple paging files on different disks?

On the plus side by only having 2 rather than 4 DIMMs installed I spotted a minor SIV issue and fixed it. I am pleased that the SIV W9x SMBus support 'just worked' on ICH9.

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-19, 10:53:

If you have the necessary tool and skill you may try cutting the end of a PCIe x8 slot open so a PCIe x16 can be inserted...

There are 2 x PCIe x8 slots and both have things in the way so it would be impossible to insert a x16 card even if I cut the end off.

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-19, 10:53:

Looks like Matrox G550 had a PCIe x1 variant. That model had Win95/98
I'm not sure about PCIe but there are a good amount of Gigabit NICs with Win98 support.

I tried my G550 PCIe x1 again, but the 683 drivers didn't find it so I guess it's too new, but the image quality is better than the on-board XGI Volari.

I have a Digital DE500 in the PCI slot and that works well so I think I will get a PCIe to PCI card, plug the DE500 into it and then use a PCI GPU, I suspect a PCI Matrox G450 or G550 Dual Head, that was both NT4 + W98 should be happy.

Update: with a PCI Matrox G450 Dual Head the display is good enough for me so I just need the PCIe to PCI card to arrive as not having a network is a show stopper for me as I can't run the MSVC 6 remote debugger.

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-19, 10:53:

I don't think there were official chipset drivers but recent patcher9x releases included unofficial chipset INFs by LoneCrusader, which can be found in EXTRA\INTELINF in its floppy image.

There aren't, I installed some and the yellow ! went away.

I guess I should try and find some ICH9 USB2 drivers, also does W98SE come with USB flash drive support?, it doesn't seem to find a driver when I plug in a drive.

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-19, 14:09:

I guess I should try and find some ICH9 USB2 drivers, also does W98SE come with USB flash drive support?, it doesn't seem to find a driver when I plug in a drive.

No, it does not have built-in flash drive support. But there are lot of drivers for USB storage in the net.

And you may try USB ethernet adapters like the D-Link DUB-E100.

If you'r up for a little "woodwork" - you can probably just take any cheap card with PCIe + 98SE support and remove the not needed 8 lanes from the connector by sawing it off. This should work just fine.

tehsiggi wrote on 2026-01-19, 20:18:

you can probably just take any cheap card with PCIe + 98SE support

Thank you for the idea which I am prepared to try, but which GPU, ideally NVidia, meets the PCIe + 98SE support criteria?

I though my PCie GeForce 6600 GT would, but it's an NV43 so Curie with a Device ID of 0140. Looking in the attached NVAGP.inf from https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/details/11/ there is:

%NVIDIA&DEV_00F1.DeviceDesc% = NV30, PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_00F1
NVIDIA&DEV_00F1.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT"

so a NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT is a NV30 so Rankine with a Device ID of 00F1.

AFAIK in general Curie GPUs are GeForce 7 and I can't find a W9x driver for GeForce 7.

I could add as below to the .INF file and suspect it would then install, but would it work?

%NVIDIA&DEV_0140.DeviceDesc% = NV30, PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0140
NVIDIA&DEV_0140.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT (PCie)"

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-19, 23:35:

Thank you for the idea which I am prepared to try, but which GPU, ideally NVidia, meets the PCIe + 98SE support criteria? […]
Show full quote

tehsiggi wrote on 2026-01-19, 20:18:

you can probably just take any cheap card with PCIe + 98SE support

Thank you for the idea which I am prepared to try, but which GPU, ideally NVidia, meets the PCIe + 98SE support criteria?

I though my PCie GeForce 6600 GT would, but it's an NV43 so Curie with a Device ID of 0140. Looking in the attached NVAGP.inf from https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/details/11/ there is:

%NVIDIA&DEV_00F1.DeviceDesc% = NV30, PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_00F1
NVIDIA&DEV_00F1.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT"

so a NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT is a NV30 so Rankine with a Device ID of 00F1.

AFAIK in general Curie GPUs are GeForce 7 and I can't find a W9x driver for GeForce 7.

I could add as below to the .INF file and suspect it would then install, but would it work?

%NVIDIA&DEV_00F1.DeviceDesc% = NV30, PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0140
NVIDIA&DEV_0140.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT (PCie)"

For GeForce 7 series cards you'll want the modified 82.69 drivers. I think the well-known NV8269.exe package from MDGx had PCIe entries already included.

I don't think 77.72 supported 7 series at all, but it will work very well with 6 series and has fewer bugs than 82.69. You'll still need to manually add the entries in the INF for PCIe variants, however, but the INF from modified 82.69 driver can be used as a reference.

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-20, 02:05:

You'll still need to manually add the entries in the INF for PCIe variant

I had a ponder and this evening added as below to the 81.98 .INF file.

%NVIDIA&DEV_0140.DeviceDesc% = NV30, PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0140
NVIDIA&DEV_0140.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT (PCie)"

After doing this with the 6600 GT installed in a PCI to PCIe x1 adapter with a x16 slot the GPU installed and looks to be working, thank you for all the pointers.

An unexpected bonus is that SIV reported the 6600 GT Core and Ambient temperatures !

Rather then modify the 6600 GT to be PCIe x8 I decided to order a PCIe x8 to PCIe x16 adapter.

Next I think I will see if I can get the 6600 GT working with https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/details/13/

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-20, 21:53:

Rather then modify the 6600 GT to be PCIe x8 I decided to order a PCIe x8 to PCIe x16 adapter.

The PCIe x8 to PCIe x16 adapters arrived today, they work great on all on Windows 2000 through to Windows 10, but Windows 98SE has issues, this is strange as it was fine when I used the PCI to PCIe adapter, does anyone know how I might fix things please? The system boot's OK, but once the driver is installed it get's stuck on start-up and I need to press the reset button.

It's only using one PCIe lane, I wonder why...

I just tried W98SE again, this time it started OK, then the system re-posted! BOOTLOG attached.

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-23, 23:25:

The PCIe x8 to PCIe x16 adapters arrived today, they work great on all on Windows 2000 through to Windows 10, but Windows 98SE h […]
Show full quote

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-20, 21:53:

Rather then modify the 6600 GT to be PCIe x8 I decided to order a PCIe x8 to PCIe x16 adapter.

The PCIe x8 to PCIe x16 adapters arrived today, they work great on all on Windows 2000 through to Windows 10, but Windows 98SE has issues, this is strange as it was fine when I used the PCI to PCIe adapter, does anyone know how I might fix things please? The system boot's OK, but once the driver is installed it get's stuck on start-up and I need to press the reset button.

It's only using one PCIe lane, I wonder why...

I just tried W98SE again, this time it started OK, then the system re-posted! BOOTLOG attached.

The link you posted reads:
"Add a PCI Express card to almost any 1U chassis at x4 PCIe host connection speed"

I'm not sure how it was wired electrically but I suspect it's not wiring all 8 lanes.

On the other hand, I just checked the manual of your board again. Only the first PCIe slot (the one with a PCI slot to its right) is actually x8. The second one is only x4.

Though I don't think 81.98 is a good idea. That driver had a lot of known bugs even on period-correct systems. For GeForce 6 series 77.72 would perform better.

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-24, 04:39:

I'm not sure how it was wired electrically but I suspect it's not wiring all 8 lanes.

Though I don't think 81.98 is a good idea. That driver had a lot of known bugs even on period-correct systems. For GeForce 6 series 77.72 would perform better.

Thank you for your input. I have a GK208B GeForce GT 730 which has an x8 connection, when it's in the x8 slot the system won't post with the post card showing 4A 76. With it in the x4 slot the system does post and runs at x4 both with and without the x8 to x16 adapter. Given this at least 4 lanes are wired and I suspect 8 are.

When I also installed the NV43 the GK208B dropped from x4 to x2 !

Update: My 2nd 6600 GT just arrived and with 2 x 6600 GT installed one is x1 and the other x4.

I wonder if it's possible to get SLI working on 2003, does anyone know how to do this please?

I might try 77.72 later today or I may wait 'till I get the motherboard with 3 x PCIe x16 + 2 x PCI slots that was too much of a temptation.

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-24, 04:39:

For GeForce 6 series 77.72 would perform better.

I tried 77.72, initially it would not install so I did the same edits to the .INF file and it then installed and asked for a reboot. When I rebooted W98 started loading then the system spontaneously reposted. Next time I selected a logged boot, it seemed to get stuck and I had to press reset, log attached.

I also tried 77.72_winnt4_english, again it installed and when I rebooted the NV4 service failed to start and exited with 31, ERROR_GEN_FAILURE A device attached to the system is not functioning.

I am starting to think the 6600 GT PCIe is just too new for 98SE + NT4 and I will have to use an AGP or PCI GPU. If only I could find a GeForce 6200 PCI, there are lots on PCIe, but no PCI.

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-25, 06:49:

I tried 77.72, initially it would not install so I did the same edits to the .INF file and it then installed and asked for a reb […]
Show full quote

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-24, 04:39:

For GeForce 6 series 77.72 would perform better.

I tried 77.72, initially it would not install so I did the same edits to the .INF file and it then installed and asked for a reboot. When I rebooted W98 started loading then the system spontaneously reposted. Next time I selected a logged boot, it seemed to get stuck and I had to press reset, log attached.

I also tried 77.72_winnt4_english, again it installed and when I rebooted the NV4 service failed to start and exited with 31, ERROR_GEN_FAILURE A device attached to the system is not functioning.

I am starting to think the 6600 GT PCIe is just too new for 98SE + NT4 and I will have to use an AGP or PCI GPU. If only I could find a GeForce 6200 PCI, there are lots on PCIe, but no PCI.

From the boot log, it seems nVidia driver itself is loaded but something else is not right. There's an error saying "miniVDD failed to load".

Not sure what exactly, but have you tried not using ACPI for Win98? To (re)install Win98 without ACPI support, use "setup /p i". It's also possible to switch between ACPI and non-ACPI by modifying the registry.

As for NT4, have you applied all upgrades (e.g. SP6a)? I recall 77.72 certainly required latest service pack (e.g. SP6) to function, while AGP/PCIe is only supported since NT4 SP3.

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-25, 11:01:

From the boot log, it seems nVidia driver itself is loaded but something else is not right. There's an error saying "miniVDD failed to load".

Not sure what exactly, but have you tried not using ACPI for Win98? To (re)install Win98 without ACPI support, use "setup /p i". It's also possible to switch between ACPI and non-ACPI by modifying the registry.

As for NT4, have you applied all upgrades (e.g. SP6a)? I recall 77.72 certainly required latest service pack (e.g. SP6) to function, while AGP/PCIe is only supported since NT4 SP3.

Thank you for your post. The 98SE system was OK 'till I started installing NVidia drivers, at one stage I had a PCI Matrox G450 Dual Head. I suspect ACPI is enabled.

Yes, SP6a in installed, look at the SIV screen shot and you can see it is.

I feel I will try an X58 system as my main W9x test system and see if that is any more stable., it will also have 2 x PCI + 3 x PCIe x16 so there will be more hardware options. When I install W9x I guess I should use "setup /p i", should I? I have done all the W98SE installs with 1GB of memory, applied the patch then added more memory, the X58 system will have at least 12GB as I also plan to install XP-x64 SP1 + W10.

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-25, 16:26:

I feel I will try an X58 system as my main W9x test system and see if that is any more stable., it will also have 2 x PCI + 3 x PCIe x16 so there will be more hardware options. When I install W9x I guess I should use "setup /p i", should I? I have done all the W98SE installs with 1GB of memory, applied the patch then added more memory, the X58 system will have at least 12GB as I also plan to install XP-x64 SP1 + W10.

I think you should disable ACPI (by starting install with "setup /p i") if possible. On my X99 system, with ACPI enabled, a lot of hardware would not even show up in the Device Manager. Only when ACPI disabled could I see them and install drivers for them.

Also, In my case I need to apply PATCHMEM right after initial install, as even after limiting RAM with LIMITMEM the vanilla VMM32 outright caused my system to rePOST. Only after applying PATCHMEM (and other necessary ones) was I able to get it booted.

By the way, which parameter did you use when applying PATCHMEM? Maybe for nVidia video cards (and drivers) /A is also necessary, as that addresses issues that might arise with at least AGP video cards IIRC. Normally I'd use both /A and /M regardless, as they both add additional fixes that I don't notice any side effect.

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-25, 16:59:

On my X99 system, with ACPI enabled, a lot of hardware would not even show up in the Device Manager. Only when ACPI disabled could I see them and install drivers for them.

Have you every tried SIV32L on your W98SE X99 system?, I wonder how it will do and if those missing devices would show up on [PCI Bus]. SPD reporting will not work as the DIMMs are on IMC SMBuses which SIV only supports on NT 3.51 and later, if you do try it use SIV V5.86 Beta-01 or later as they have much improved W9x ICH/PCH SMBus support.

My guess is that it's the ACPI revisions that are too high for W98SE, looking the the revisions on this system FACP is rev 6, there is no way W98 will know about it.

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-25, 16:59:

I think you should disable ACPI (by starting install with "setup /p i") if possible.

By the way, which parameter did you use when applying PATCHMEM? Maybe for nVidia video cards (and drivers) /A is also necessary, as that addresses issues that might arise with at least AGP video cards IIRC. Normally I'd use both /A and /M regardless, as they both add additional fixes that I don't notice any side effect.

Thank you, when I install of the X58 I will use setup /p i, I also plan to install with just 1GB of memory, once W98SE is installed I will put it back to 12GB.

I used patcher9x-0.9.91-win32 I think from NT4 (maybe W10 with the SSD connected via USB), I just ran it, typed in the W98SE location and selected option 3 as I didn't and don't know which command lines options I should use. What command line would you recommend I use and why please?

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-27, 01:03:

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-25, 16:59:

On my X99 system, with ACPI enabled, a lot of hardware would not even show up in the Device Manager. Only when ACPI disabled could I see them and install drivers for them.

Have you every tried SIV32L on your W98SE X99 system?, I wonder how it will do and if those missing devices would show up on [PCI Bus]. SPD reporting will not work as the DIMMs are on IMC SMBuses which SIV only supports on NT 3.51 and later, if you do try it use SIV V5.86 Beta-01 or later as they have much improved W9x ICH/PCH SMBus support.

My guess is that it's the ACPI revisions that are too high for W98SE, looking the the revisions on this system FACP is rev 6, there is no way W98 will know about it.

I haven't. Will see if SIV can read some useful ACPI info there.

red-ray wrote on 2026-01-27, 01:03:

LSS10999 wrote on 2026-01-25, 16:59:

I think you should disable ACPI (by starting install with "setup /p i") if possible.

By the way, which parameter did you use when applying PATCHMEM? Maybe for nVidia video cards (and drivers) /A is also necessary, as that addresses issues that might arise with at least AGP video cards IIRC. Normally I'd use both /A and /M regardless, as they both add additional fixes that I don't notice any side effect.

Thank you, when I install of the X58 I will use setup /p i, I also plan to install with just 1GB of memory, once W98SE is installed I will put it back to 12GB.

I used patcher9x-0.9.91-win32 I think from NT4 (maybe W10 with the SSD connected via USB), I just ran it, typed in the W98SE location and selected option 3 as I didn't and don't know which command lines options I should use. What command line would you recommend I use and why please?

I haven't checked the memory patch portion of patcher9x. I'm using that mainly for the issue related to TLB invalidation. Not sure if it matters for X99 but that patch is certainly required for Ryzen CPUs (even in VMs).

For addressing memory and other boot issues, I'm using original PATCHMEM and I usually use both /A and /M arguments there. I don't have any detailed info on whether patcher9x had incorporated equivalents to those extra PATCHMEM arguments at the moment.

EDIT: Looks like patcher9x now has a "-m" argument which is the equivalent to PATCHMEM's /M (Move VXD Data above 16MB). But I couldn't find any info about a /A equivalent, that is, per PATCHMEM's MANUAL.TXT, "Move AGP and Unfixed Tables >=128MB to Shared Arena".