Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-11, 20:11:

Also guys do I need service packs for se or anything like that?

I would avoid unofficial "service packs" which often involves replacing system files with those from later Windows versions to enable features you probably don't need.
Perhaps mass storage drivers / USB 2.0 support could be handy. Down to your use case.
Otherwise, Windows 98 is usually best with as little variables as possible for instability.

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-11, 20:11:

Also guys do I need service packs for se or anything like that?

If you want to use over 512MB of RAM you'll want to install at least the base Unofficial SP3 package. Some programs can still have issues but it's been stable in my experience. I personally skip the other packages.

I also recommend installing the universal USB storage driver. Having a USB drive mount just by plugging it in is so nice. I forgot how bad USB support is on 98 until I went back to it.

Awesome thanks guys 😀

BushLin wrote on 2020-11-11, 20:32:

I would avoid unofficial "service packs" which often involves replacing system files with those from later Windows versions to e […]
Show full quote

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-11, 20:11:

Also guys do I need service packs for se or anything like that?

I would avoid unofficial "service packs" which often involves replacing system files with those from later Windows versions to enable features you probably don't need.
Perhaps mass storage drivers / USB 2.0 support could be handy. Down to your use case.
Otherwise, Windows 98 is usually best with as little variables as possible for instability.

Any possible decent links to the USB 2.0 drivers?

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-11, 22:34:

BushLin wrote on 2020-11-11, 20:32:

I would avoid unofficial "service packs" which often involves replacing system files with those from later Windows versions to e […]
Show full quote

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-11, 20:11:

Also guys do I need service packs for se or anything like that?

I would avoid unofficial "service packs" which often involves replacing system files with those from later Windows versions to enable features you probably don't need.
Perhaps mass storage drivers / USB 2.0 support could be handy. Down to your use case.
Otherwise, Windows 98 is usually best with as little variables as possible for instability.

Any possible decent links to the USB 2.0 drivers?

These are the official USB 2.0 drivers from Intel and I'd recommend them, probably not of much use on a non-Intel chipset:
https://download.asrock.com/Drivers/Int ... 1.0.2).zip
These are a 3rd party implementation which I've seen recommended and include support/drivers for mass storage (USB disks):
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#NUF

SScorpio wrote on 2020-11-11, 21:39:

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-11, 20:11:

Also guys do I need service packs for se or anything like that?

If you want to use over 512MB of RAM you'll want to install at least the base Unofficial SP3 package. Some programs can still have issues but it's been stable in my experience. I personally skip the other packages.

I also recommend installing the universal USB storage driver. Having a USB drive mount just by plugging it in is so nice. I forgot how bad USB support is on 98 until I went back to it.

I don't know of any software for Windows 98 that would need more than 512MB of RAM but if you have more than 512MB RAM and want to make Windows 98 stable by simply limiting how much RAM it can access you can just edit your system.ini to include a MaxPhysPage value like so:

1[386Enh]
2
3MaxPhysPage=20000

These are some possible values for MaxPhysPage:

960 MB MaxPhysPage=3C000 768 MB MaxPhysPage=30000 512 MB MaxPhysPage=20000 384 MB MaxPhysPage=18000 2 […]
Show full quote

960 MB MaxPhysPage=3C000
768 MB MaxPhysPage=30000
512 MB MaxPhysPage=20000
384 MB MaxPhysPage=18000
256 MB MaxPhysPage=10000
192 MB MaxPhysPage=0C000
128 MB MaxPhysPage=08000

Other safe performance tweaks for system.ini if you have decent hardware and amount of RAM:

1[386Enh]
2ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
332bitdiskaccess=on
4LoadLocalHigh=1
5DMABufferSize=64
6PageBuffers=32
7
8[vcache]
9minfilecache=65536
10maxfilecache=65536
11chunksize=2048
12namecache=4096
13directorycache=96

Also enable DMA for your HDD in Device Manager and disable Task Scheduler (System Tools -> Scheduled Tasks -> Advanced -> Stop Using Task Scheduler).

BushLin wrote on 2020-11-12, 01:22:

These are the official USB 2.0 drivers from Intel and I'd recommend them, probably not of much use on a non-Intel chipset: https […]
Show full quote

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-11, 22:34:

BushLin wrote on 2020-11-11, 20:32:

I would avoid unofficial "service packs" which often involves replacing system files with those from later Windows versions to enable features you probably don't need.
Perhaps mass storage drivers / USB 2.0 support could be handy. Down to your use case.
Otherwise, Windows 98 is usually best with as little variables as possible for instability.

Any possible decent links to the USB 2.0 drivers?

These are the official USB 2.0 drivers from Intel and I'd recommend them, probably not of much use on a non-Intel chipset:
https://download.asrock.com/Drivers/Int ... 1.0.2).zip
These are a 3rd party implementation which I've seen recommended and include support/drivers for mass storage (USB disks):
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#NUF

SScorpio wrote on 2020-11-11, 21:39:

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-11, 20:11:

Also guys do I need service packs for se or anything like that?

If you want to use over 512MB of RAM you'll want to install at least the base Unofficial SP3 package. Some programs can still have issues but it's been stable in my experience. I personally skip the other packages.

I also recommend installing the universal USB storage driver. Having a USB drive mount just by plugging it in is so nice. I forgot how bad USB support is on 98 until I went back to it.

I don't know of any software for Windows 98 that would need more than 512MB of RAM but if you have more than 512MB RAM and want to make Windows 98 stable by simply limiting how much RAM it can access you can just edit your system.ini to include a MaxPhysPage value like so:

Copy code to clipboard

1[386Enh]
2
3MaxPhysPage=20000

These are some possible values for MaxPhysPage:

960 MB MaxPhysPage=3C000 768 MB MaxPhysPage=30000 512 MB MaxPhysPage=20000 384 MB MaxPhysPage=18000 2 […]
Show full quote

960 MB MaxPhysPage=3C000
768 MB MaxPhysPage=30000
512 MB MaxPhysPage=20000
384 MB MaxPhysPage=18000
256 MB MaxPhysPage=10000
192 MB MaxPhysPage=0C000
128 MB MaxPhysPage=08000

Other safe performance tweaks for system.ini if you have decent hardware and amount of RAM:

Copy code to clipboard

1[386Enh]
2ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
332bitdiskaccess=on
4LoadLocalHigh=1
5DMABufferSize=64
6PageBuffers=32
7
8[vcache]
9minfilecache=65536
10maxfilecache=65536
11chunksize=2048
12namecache=4096
13directorycache=96

Also enable DMA for your HDD in Device Manager and disable Task Scheduler (System Tools -> Scheduled Tasks -> Advanced -> Stop Using Task Scheduler).

👍

I will probably get a usb 2.0 pci card just because my board only has 1.0 which stinks so I could just get the product and then download the drivers from the model itself too 😀

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-12, 04:20:

I will probably get a usb 2.0 pci card just because my board only has 1.0 which stinks so I could just get the product and then download the drivers from the model itself too 😀

It is advisable to get a board with a NEC chipset and not a VIA chipset. See Which USB 2.0 cards for old motherboards . But neither requires special drivers.

But really, are you really going to be doing file transfers so often that you think the extra complexity will be worth the trouble?

Jorpho wrote on 2020-11-12, 04:56:

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-12, 04:20:

I will probably get a usb 2.0 pci card just because my board only has 1.0 which stinks so I could just get the product and then download the drivers from the model itself too 😀

It is advisable to get a board with a NEC chipset and not a VIA chipset. See Which USB 2.0 cards for old motherboards . But neither requires special drivers.

But really, are you really going to be doing file transfers so often that you think the extra complexity will be worth the trouble?

Maybe so for games but I am not sure, probably isn't worth it, games like Quake 2 transfer is an example.

Also do I technically even need to install the onboard sound drivers just because I will not be using anything going into the mb because the soundblaster itself will be hooked in with the drivers for that.

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-12, 07:13:

Also do I technically even need to install the onboard sound drivers just because I will not be using anything going into the mb because the soundblaster itself will be hooked in with the drivers for that.

In a word, no.
You could install the drivers and disable the device perhaps if you were setting up for someone else but disabling the device without driver installation is cleaner.

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-12, 07:13:

Also do I technically even need to install the onboard sound drivers just because I will not be using anything going into the mb because the soundblaster itself will be hooked in with the drivers for that.

If you aren't going to use the onboard sound, go into the BIOS and disable it there so it doesn't take up IO and IRQs. That could prevent a conflict with other hardware.

SScorpio wrote on 2020-11-12, 12:44:

Grayshazzle wrote on 2020-11-12, 07:13:

Also do I technically even need to install the onboard sound drivers just because I will not be using anything going into the mb because the soundblaster itself will be hooked in with the drivers for that.

If you aren't going to use the onboard sound, go into the BIOS and disable it there so it doesn't take up IO and IRQs. That could prevent a conflict with other hardware.

Thank you 😀