OK, I have been a computer user since the AppleII (Rember CAT instead of DIR?), and a DOS lover even when most programs migrated to the WFW 3.1 interface. I still know and love the 'tools behind the window', and keep my primary computer Win 98SE. It has been working for years, is maintained like my classic car, and is treated with the respect it deserves - I know Windows is an upside down pyramid to begin with - as unstable as possible, once you start adding things on to it...

I recently found this "unofficial 98SE Service Pack" site, and downloaded the previous version (win98se_sp202en.exe) a few months ago. While I didn't notice much improvement, I figured it was prob something Microsoft would have done before abandoning Win98, and was a good idea.

OK, now for the problem...A week ago I upgraded to a 160GB HDU, and a HP all-in-one printer, and did a complete reformat, a clean Win98SE install and everything else, and it all went OK. Well, the last thing I had to do was to install the "unofficial 98SE Service Pack", and so I checked the website and got the latest version: "sesp21a-en_98SESP2.exe"

It crashed this PC. I got a registry error, then and endless loop of the DOS Microsoft Registry Checker. I pulled out one, then 2 older PC's and started Googling... While trying everything I could thing of, remember and read to try to get this machine to boot - luckily I could OCCASIONALLY get into safe mode...

Reading the post:
http://www.msfn.org/board/Registry-error-reported-t65516.html
made me wonder about the logic of disabling the very thing I was checking for seemed counterintuative, but finally I relented and did just that. I spent 3 hours getting to this point! I have 2 other computers up (an XP and another 98SE) and have just about exhausted my mind, fingers, and patience...

There are a few other comments on this, and a few outside comments on these unofficial updates. See for a sample:
http://www.msfn.org/board/reinstall-Win98-t65458.html
http://www.msfn.org/board/98-SE-SP-30-BETA-3-t61749.html
http://www.msfn.org/board/-t52491.html

What this "solution" does, is to DISABLE REGISTRY CHECKING of profiles! "SystemReg=0 - disables scanning the registry for hardware profiles. Note: can cause some systems to hang."

These folks don't think too highly of this:
http://computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/forum/158505.html
and neither do I!

If it worked before, what was changed to make it suck so bad now? What changed so that I have to add "SystemReg=0" now?

AND I CAN'T undo this install, can I???

I have 2 OTHER Win98SE computers with the old version that works fine, and, of course, I am NOT going to place this version on them!

So, can SOMEONE help me figure out WHY this version causes the registry checker to go into endless loops if this version is installed without any file modifications?

I have attached info on this PC in question. It is a Dell Optiplex GX110, with 256MB, Phoenix 01/22/03 BIOS, and Intel 6 Model 8 732 MHz PIII.

I just want to know why I have to disable reg checking, and if I can uninstall this, and either go back to the previous version (win98se_sp202en.exe), or just back to good old MS Win98SE?

If you want to answer privately, email me at "emarkay_at_email_dot_com"

THANK YOU!

OK, 30 reads and no comment...

http://www.msfn.org/board/Unofficial-update-vers-t65735.html

I should give it a day, but, well,now my ENTIRE main PC is now trashed.

One moment it was fine, then I got the BSOD, and then ASCII characters where my autoexec.bat was. DOS booting Scandisk found all sorts of FAT errors, and fixed them, and then I found (after much time) that my SCANREG.INI is also full of ASCII gibberish. So no way to even get a backup registry...

So now, I am totally AFU on my primary PC.

And who is the complete id*** that said to not backup registries with the SystemReg command?


See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/183603/EN-US/

"A value of 1 (default) causes a backup copy of your registry to be made the first time you start your computer on any given day (determined by the system clock).

A value of 0 disables registry backup.

NOTE: Disabling registry backup is not recommended. "

DID YOU READ THAT TOO???

I am just stunned - both at myself for not doing more research before hand, and,well, all of this. What can be done is that hopefully I get a logical and rational explanation on all of this, and that some effort is made here to prevent such problems from happening again, for not all of us can take the time to reload an OS and all the related programs on a moment's notice.

[takes deep breath, shakes head, shuts it all down,and crawls under the covers...]

I recommended to add "SystemReg=0", *not* to add "Backup=0"...

This registry problem rarely occurs on the some systems because of the new IO.SYS file (WINBOOT.SYS / Q311561). This update has a problem which is not fixed by Microsoft. A workaround is to add "SystemReg=0" into the MSDOS.SYS.

Hello emarkey, may I know where you found the file named "sesp21a-en_98SESP2.exe"? I've never seen this name. Have you downloaded really the genuine file? Does it have 17.430.016 bytes and md5: 10cde8dc76f00e78e874094580b70d2d, as written at http://www.msfn.org/board/98-SE-SP-30-BETA-3-t61749.html ? I have also never seen file named win98se_sp202en.exe.

I know about hundreds of SESP installations and never any problem with registry.

I remember I had the same registry problem long time ago with Soyo 6VBA133 with VIA Apollo PRO133 chipset, just at certain stage of installation I've got registry error and endless loops of rebooting and restoring the registry. I never found how to resolve this problem. It was without any unofficial service pack.

There may be a problem with your 160 GB disk. I'm not sure but your disk controller is probably Intel ICH - 82801AA and this controller uses ESDI_506.PDR by default. ESDI_506.PDR does not support disks bigger that 137 GB and if you will write beyond this boundary, you will overwrite the data at the beginning of the disk. Then nothing than reinstall can help.
Of course, you may use Intel Application Accelerator (IAA) 2.3 and then there should be no problem.
You may also try to download the package with demo of 137GB patch from R. Loew - it contains some tools for determining if your computer really supports disks bigger than 137GB.

This was just an idea.

Nobody knows what may happen and that's why there is written on top of the page "ALWAYS BACKUP FIRST!"

Petr

This really looks like 137GB+ disk problem.

Petr

> This really looks like 137GB+ disk problem.

Yep, it really does sound like your FAT is messed up because you wrote past 137 GB barrier. This bug exists in a lot of OS's like XP pre-SP1.

I recommend booting from a different drive and using Drive Rescue to search for and salvage as many files as you can:

http://www.woundedmoon.org/win32/driverescue19d.html

You have to have a special program like Intel application accelerator or VIA IDE Miniport driver installed in Windows 98 SE to avoid the 137 GB bug. Or use DOS only. Or delete the evil ESDI506.PDR hard disk controller driver. Or get a smaller disk.

or use ntfs

Microsoft Filesystem Overview

My typo - it's: sesp21a-en_98.exe", and I got it from here:
http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html

As for old file, see: It's from the same site as above!!!
"August 1, 2005 - Unofficial Windows 98 SE Service Pack 2.0.2 is released."

That's what I have and it was 16,022 KB in size.

THIS IS the "official" forum for these products, isn't it???

It is an Intel 810 chipset, but I have partitioned the drive to a 60, a 60 and a 40 GB volume so the 137 GB limitation is not a factor, correct?

And as for backups see previous post

MRK

OK another typo - still,

"=SystemReg=
Scan System Registry modules upon startup -
Enabled:Scan Registry = 1
Disabled:Do NOT scan Registry = 0

NOTE: "SystemReg=" are UNDOCUMENTED!"

http://www2.acc.chula.ac.th/~montree/msdos.html
http://www.computerhope.com/msdossys.htm

Why would you NOT want to confirm registry is good by scanning it before each run???





Can't be used with WIN98SE - and then if so this whole point is moot - this topic is about the unofficial WIN98SE SP....




No, have the 160GB partitioned to 60GB, 60GB, and 40GB....



Well it's moot for a few reasons - I have reinstalled Win98SE, WILL NOT use this SP ever again, and well, it's been a long 2 days.

Wish this thing was as good as it used to be...
If the author (Mr. C.) wants to discuss this - (I am still intrigued by developing 98SE and keeping it as a prime OS beyond April 2006 when MS support stops) I may be willing to beta test, BUT NOT ON MY PRIMARY PC!

The problem may be caused by a bad IDE cable or a RAM problem.

That might just be the problem. Without an HDD driver that supports 48bit LBA, accessing the space on the drive beyond 128Gb will lead to wraparound. In this case, filling beyond 8Gb of the 40Gb partition would cause that (if they were in that order you specified).

It can, with the appropriate filesystem driver. However, the filesystem driver operates above the level of the hardware driver and so is subject to its 128Gb limitation.

Individual partitions don't matter. The point is that wraparound will occur at the physical 128th GB irregardless of partition size.

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see any file named "sesp21a-en_98.exe" on the above mentioned URL.

The files available for downoload are (and were):

sesp21a-en.exe
sesp21en.exe
sesp202en.exe
sesp201en.exe
etc.

I've never seen any file named "sesp21a-en_98SESP2.exe", "win98se_sp202en.exe" or "sesp21a-en_98.exe" and that was why I asked you where you got them - to be sure that you really have the official files.

Petr

No, this is not correct.

The 137GB limit relates tho the physical disk size, not to partition size.

The problem is with physical disk addressing, the ESDI_506.PDR uses 28-bit addressing of sectors (512 bytes each), so the maximum addressable sector number is 2^28-1 = 268435455 . If you try to address sector number 268435456, you will read or write sector 0 instead.

Maximum partition size in Windows 98 SE is 2048GiB (2,2TB), just Windows Scandisk and Defrag will not work with partition size bigger than 137 GB because of the memory allocation problem.

Petr

Hi, could this have to do with it? Check the 'ASPI Layer'.
Rudolf

maybe not.




since your system uses intel 810 chipsets, emarkay, try installing the Intel Application Accelerator v2.3 [IAA] driver from Intel download site:

http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df...18&submit=Go%21

The IAA driver can read 137 Gb and bigger hard drives under Win98se/ME and is compatible with intel 810 chipsets.

Please note that this URL:
http://www2.acc.chula.ac.th/~montree/msdos.html
is only an older copy of my MSDOS.SYS Guide:
http://www.mdgx.com/msdos.htm
which used to be located here [my old web site on AOL has been disabled for over 3 years]:
http://members.aol.com/axcel216/msdos.htm
This page on AOL only redirects to my current one:
http://www.mdgx.com/msdos.htm

Hope this helps.

Are you sure that's the right entry? Because that one may be telling it to not load the registry at all, which means you're stuck at the command prompt!!

That option disables registry scanning on startup...

http://www.mdgx.com/msdos.htm
http://www.computerhope.com/msdossys.htm

Backup= does not exist as MSDOS.SYS setting.
You can add/modify it/whatever, but it won't do anything.

SystemReg= only *scans* for certain errors the registry files upon every Windows startup, does not tell Windows to not load the registry.
Therefore it is perfectly safe to use.
I use SystemReg= in my MSDOS.SYS [and WINBOOT.INI] for over 8 years, without any problems, with Win95, 98 and ME [all editions].

Hope this helps.

or use ntfs

Unfortunately, it is more difficult to perform data recovery on a corrupt ntfs partition.
Data recovery is easier under FAT32.

Well it's moot for a few reasons - I have reinstalled Win98SE, WILL NOT use this SP ever again, and well, it's been a long 2 days.

Don't bury your head in the sand like an ostrich. I recommend that you research the 137 GB problem before you trash your HD again.

I have the IAA installed already.

I have been looking at a few things, and decided it may be the 137GB issue on the ascii charactrers. I still don't know what caused the 98SE SP2 probs, but:

I need to do a clean install anyway.

Will low level format and limit to 125GB (I really don't ned those "extra" gigs anyway) and will test the latest sesp21a (from here)
http://www.msfn.org/board/98-SE-SP-30-BETA-3-t61749.html
now before I reload - if it is OK here and now, then I will install it tomorrow with the new Win reload.

Will see if i crash and burn or go on merryling along like an ostritch...
http://www.msfn.org/board/-t65745.html&st=10

Ostrich? Who me [mumbles as sand fills mouth and nose...] ?

Consider this thread closed and see here for any updates...

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?act=po...st&f=91&t=65735

Well, it's trashed again... not ascii, but win98se sp2. See post above for details...

Well, on the laptop now. Yup, your win98se sp2 trashed my PC again.

I had some screen captures, but I can't network in safe mode...

First I noticed that not only processor data was gone, but also user information in SYSTEM/PROPERTIES - as well as the handy DEVICE MANAGER!.

Your Adaptec ASPI replacements are not up to date! Well, let's see what else can I remember...

Who cares, I get the endless loop of CHECKING REGISTRY BSOD and restart - AND I AM NOT CRIPPLING MY DAILY REGISTRY SCAN AND BACKUP with your "fix"..

If someone wants to look into this further, fine, I'll give you as much data on my system as I can.

But I consider this a FLAWED and DANGEROUS program, and will continue to say so unless proven otherwise.

Thanks - for nothing...

MRK

Well, on the laptop now. Yup, your win98se sp2 trashed my PC again.

I had some screen captures, but I can't network in safe mode...

First I noticed that not only processor data was gone, but also user information in SYSTEM/PROPERTIES - as well as the handy DEVICE MANAGER!.

Your Adaptec ASPI replacements are not up to date! Well, let's see what else can I remember...

Who cares, I get the endless loop of CHECKING REGISTRY BSOD and restart - AND I AM NOT CRIPPLING MY DAILY REGISTRY SCAN AND BACKUP with your "fix"..

If someone wants to look into this further, fine, I'll give you as much data on my system as I can.

But I consider this a FLAWED and DANGEROUS program, and will continue to say so unless proven otherwise.

Thanks - for nothing...

MRK

You have to realize - This pack is unofficial for a reason, and it may not work for everybody. This is true for most unofficial patching projects. Saying "Thanks - for nothing" is just pointless - it is entirely your fault, your curiosity, that your system is screwed up. If it didn't work the first time, and you had your drivers installed (IAA), and you still had issues, it's probable that your system will not work with the unofficial patch. The fact that Petr & erpdude8 took time out of their day for you, and all you can say is thanks for nothing, well, you have a lot to learn about this community, and how hard it is to patch things that Microsoft left for dead.

It isn't a guaranteed fix, and isn't waranteed under any warantee. You cannot expect an unofficial patch to fix your problems. If anything, you can expect anything unofficial to screw something up - it wasn't made by the original proprietor, and thus, might have problems with some hardware.

ived installed it about 30 times without a single error.its the best piece of 98se software ived used in years.

I too, have not had any problems on it, and have installed it on several virtual pc's, and Pentium 133-through Celeron 2.0GHz machines. I have yet to have any problems like emarkay.

Yeah, well it's NEVER safe to use an unofficial program, fix, or service pack...what ever it might be never use anything that's NOT official, it only causes bad problems

not NEVER... I think that the majority of people that try this out either has good results, or disasters like this. Unofficial doesn't mean bad... it just means non-production quality, and possibly also alpha-quality bugs... It's a luck of the draw, I guess. (Although it seems that most people DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM with the pack).

I will admit though, I love the Unofficial service pack. One of the PC's in my house did get it's 98 install botched. However, that was due to the pc already having problems with it's install in the first place such as registry errors being persistant. Same pc was redone afterward and works like a dream.

This endless loop of registry checking is not unofficial pack's fault. It is a bug of Q311561 update (which is a OFFICIAL update, and there is exactly same version in the unofficial pack). Please, try to google. Even without unofficial service pack, this Q311561 update causes mentioned problem on some systems.

One of the reasons of this loop is bad memory modules. I highly recommend that you should check your ram modules with a program such that MemTest. Could you write your detailed hardware list ?

Also make sure that you installed latest version of your mainboard and vga drivers (especially IAA).

Did you read installation guide of the unofficial pack ?

You think OFFICIAL service packs are perfect ? IMO, they're not. For example, my old machine (which has old VIA Apollo VPX chipset), has serious problems with XP Service Pack 2.

Sorry for the "TFN" comment - I DO understand the B,S&T in 'freeware' type development - a labor of love and devotion - I use Flight Sim a lot and a lot of content is 'homebrewed". And I DO know it's unsupported and it's not possible to test every petmutation of usages. But I guess I just seemed frustrated... BTW, still on the laptop, but I am getting desktop back online as I speak....

Will look at RAM and test it - never had any reasaon to do so. I have the latest Intel drivers, and will confirm so, and FYI get off a email of hardware, and software. I skimmed the manual, yes, but did take the time to study it. Will do so this weekend.

I may not want to reload the entire thing, but if you have some ""reversable"" tests you may want to try on this unit, I will do what I can to help so others don't get so bothered...

MRK

I highly recommend that you should check your ram modules with a program such that MemTest

MemTest never helped me; IMHO Prime95 is much better at revealing RAM errors.
Especially if you choose Advanced settings (Password 9876) and then Priority 9, followed by Torture Test.

oh ok, well still if i was gonna use any testing packs or such it would be nice it was RC quality

Prime95 having errors usually means that the processor (not RAM) is unstable. The motherboard may not be giving the processor chip enough Vcore.

Can that update be uninstalled? Maybe then optionally reinstalled by the SP?



Running Prime95 now - so far passed all 380 of the 10K and at 119 of the 12K tests. I have saved my entire System Information data. I emailed it to you via the board email service



I have IAA 2.2.2 (2.3, the newest, didn't work) VGA driver 6.7 (the latest), the INF update for the 820 chipset, and the remainder are the newest from Dell, some that may have been superceded by installation from the Intel ones.



Do you mean this:
http://www.msfn.org/board/98-SE-SP-30-BETA-3-t61749.html
That's a running diatribe of what to install in what order...
or this
http://www.msfn.org/board/Features-Version-20-t30818.html
Just a list of changes to the SP.

I may have missed it if it's not any of those (I have reviewed those). IS THERE a 'guide or manual' that at least deatils the files that are changed ans why they are?

I also noted that the update crashed Norton System Works 2003, before I rebooted...

Like I said, I appreciate the development of this and do want to help.

BTW, since MS isgoing to discontinue official support for 98SE, DO get a list of what Windows Updates are applied to your systems. Here's my list.

First, the "MS Security CD" from 2004, then these:

Security Update, February 13, 2002 (MSXML 4.0) Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Service Pack 1
Update, December 22, 1999
Mapped Drives Shutdown Update
Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package
Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
816093: Security Update Microsoft Virtual Machine (Microsoft VM)
Microsoft GDI+ Detection Tool (KB873374)
Security Update for Windows Media Player 9 Series (KB885492)
Security Update for Windows 98 (KB891781)
Security Update for Windows 98 (KB891711)
Security Update for Windows 98 (KB888113)
Security Update for Windows 98 (KB896358)
Security Update for DirectX 9 (KB904706)
Security Update for Windows 98 (KB908519)
Security Update for Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 (KB833989)
Cumulative Security Update for Outlook Express 6 Service Pack 1 (KB837009)
Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 (KB905915)

MRK

You need IAA 2.3. Why it didn't work? Before installing it, you have to install latest Intel Chipset Software Utility, firstly.


I mean this: http://www.msfn.org/board/Installation-Guide-Win98-t38193.html

As already stated in this guide, you must close all open programs. Please, read carefully "Installation Guide" part of this guide.

Will look at this issue again - I have the latest Chupset utility as listed on the Intel site. I also finally did get the latest V2.3. 0.2160 IAA and it is solid and working.



I had only explorer and systray loaded. I manually ran Norton it to look at something before I rebooted and it gave a small message box error. As for the guide, I have 4.10.222B, not A, and installed in order shown:

Windows 98SE, Dell Video driver (to get 256 color mode), MS Security disk (contains IE6 and MS updates to 98SE up to 2/2004), all system drivers (Dell and Intel) and updates, and then DirectX9.0c.
I did however have my firewall (Trend Micro PCS 2006 installed BUT DISABLED AND REMOVED FROM MEM when loading the SP) and all 12 (as I recall) new Win Updatees completed.

Is there an incompatibility with the SP and and CURRENT windows 98SE Win Updates that would affect if it was installed AFTER these updates are installed? I want to have the system Microsoft "clean" before adding any other programs.

Did you get tle hardware list email?

MRK

-a couple notes:

IAA: -some older intel chipsets can NOT use the latest versions, and Intel (in some places) notes this; one of my puters has 815 chipset, and the latest IAA totally screwed everything... upon research, I found intel notes mentioning that certain chipsets must use older IAA...

-Norton: (sigh... here we go again lol) Norton is Horrible for stability! How many times, how many people, how LONG must this be reiterated? Even if you don't have it "currently in memory", I've found, many times, just having it on the system AT ALL causes many unexplained headaches with win98se, and those unexplained headaches GO AWAY once it is (totally) removed!... just an experienced (and agonized) note...

gl...

>;]

It is described here: http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/sb/cs-015001.htm
http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/...b/cs-009319.htm


http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/...b/cs-001410.htm

This is really interesting. The installer really refuses to install IAA2.3 on these systems, but the driver itself recognizes PIIX, PIIX3, PIIX southbridges and what's real surprise, IAA2.3 package contains hidden INF file for these chipsets:


Does anybody know if there are any problems with these older chipsets and IAA? I tried to install it on older BX board and everything looks fine so far. This results in two benefits
- 48-bit LBA support
- real disk names in Device Manager (not DISK TYPE47)
Any drawbacks or compatbility problems?

Petr

where can I get the Prime95 program, azagahl & RJARRRPCGP?



of course, service packs of any kind whether official or unofficial aren't perfect. when I first installed XP SP2 on my brother's xp laptop, it hosed the Smart Link modem drivers and the modem didnt work properly. Smart Link had to post up a newer modem driver a few months after SP2 was released to fix the problem. even the Win2000 SP4 pack can cause some problems on certain Win2k machines.



I even installed the unofficial Win98se SP on an old Pentium 1 PC and on a Pentium 3 PC and the SP worked fine on both computers I've tested. Maybe the pack is incompatible with emarkay's laptop computer.

I strongly agree with PsycoUnc about Norton software. DUMP IT ASAP! Norton is a major resource hog and should NOT be used on slow machines. even on fast PCs, Norton can drag performance down unless you have installed the fastest CPU available and you have at least a gig of RAM installed.

use an alternative program for norton.

erpdude8:

Prime95:
http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm

Good find. The hidden INF files inside the IAA 2.3 pack are named W98_PIIX [for Win98 systems], WME_PIIX [for WinME systems] and W2K_PIIX [for Win2k/XP systems]. Use Snoopy81's WinPack tool to open the data1.cab or data2.cab files inside the IAA 2.3 pack (you'll need to extract those .cab files first by viewing iaa23_enu.exe in Winzip). You can get the Winpack utility here:
http://snoopy81.ifrance.com/snoopy81/en/winpack.htm
then you can extract the W98_PIIX, WME_PIIX or W2K_PIIX file and then rename any one of them as the intelata.inf file.

Also bundled in the IAA 2.3 package are the Q274370 Cdvsd.vxd hotfixes for Win98 & WinME.

Drawbacks? yes. Installing IAA 2.3 on supported or unsupported systems will rename and disable the SMARTVSD.VXD driver (on Win98/ME PCs) as this file causes conflicts with IAA.



Thanks MDGx.


Too bad Intel Application Accelerator does not work at all under Win95. It will work under NT4 BUT with SP6a installed.

SMARTVSD.VXD is replaced by INTELVSD.VXD.

Petr

OK, well, I need to reinstall everything - I have a bad HDU and a replacement is on the way, SO....

If anyone here wants me to test things, now's the time.... Tell me what, how, where and why and I'll do it.

Let me know.

MRK

* Check that is your BIOS latest?
* You must install Intel Chipset Software Utility, and IAA 2.3. (Your chipset should support IAA 2.3, I got your "System Information" email, thanks.)

Correst what I have is:

Bios is the A09 - 01/24/2003
Description: Optiplex GX110 A09 FlashBIOS
Latest listed.

Chipset is:

Z0377C01chipset.exe
Intel 800 Series Integrated Chipset, Driver,
Windows 95, Windows 98, English, Multi System, v. 2.00, A01
Release Date: 09/20/1999
Description: Intel 810 Chipset A01

and is supplanted by thest newest Intel files:

infinst_enu - intel chipset driver v631007.exe
Ver:5.1.1.1002 Date:12/12/2003 Size:1713 (KB)
OS:Windows Server* 2003, Windows* 2000, Windows* 98 SE,
Windows* Me, Windows* XP Home Edition, Windows* XP Professional

and

iaa23_enu - intel application accelerator v23.exe
(1973KB) 2.3 11/13/2002
OS:Windows NT* 4.0, Windows* 2000, Windows* 98,
Windows* 98 SE, Windows* Me, Windows* XP Home Edition,
Windows* XP Professional


When my replacement HDU arrives next week I will install the latest 89SE SP and report on what happens

I will install Win98SE, then video driver, then MS Security disc, then Firewall, then Windows Update , then install 98SESP. IS IT OK TO LOAD FIREWALL, video driver, AND WINDOWS UPDATES FIRST BEFORE INSTALLING 98SESP?

emarkay, you mus DISABLE your firewall software before installing any Windows Updates and the Win98se SP. the firewall software may interfere with the update process and screw things up. Turn off ALL antivirus and firewall software before installing the Win98 update or Win98se service pack.



Side effects of using the IAA drivers Intelata.mpd and Intelvsd.vxd and having Nero 6.x installed is that Nero 6.x causes "Unspecified target error" messages on my WinME computer when reformatting a CD-Rewritable disc. After that error message appeared, the formatting process was botched. I kept on pressing the Eject button on my CD-burner but to no avail. Had to restart the computer to make the CD-RW drive work properly again. I did not have this problem with Nero 5.5.10.56.

Click to view attachment

I even took out the cd-burner drive and put in a different one (an HP cd-writer kind) and using IAA and Nero 6 and I STILL got the "Unspecified target error" message when reformatting a cd-rw disc. So it is NOT the CD-burner that is the problem. It could a bug in Nero 6.x or a bug with the IAA driver.

I will remove the IAA drivers and revert back to the generic Microsoft WinME ATA drivers. The MS ata drivers work just fine with Nero 6.x. Or maybe I should remove the Nero 6.x software I have on my computer [v6.3.1.25] and revert back to Nero 5.5.10.56 which worked fine with the IAA drivers.

Maybe this problem has been resolved in Nero 7.

I have it installed but disabled when loading the SESP2. (I disconnect from the Internet while installing).

I have firewall/AV installed and ENABLED when connected to the 'Net, including getting the MS Windows Updates. Never noticed a problem before.
Maybe I should get the 'hard copies ' of all the MS Update files (see previous list) and then I won't need to be connected.

IN THAT CASE - DO I LOAD THE MS updated BEFORE I load the 98SESP2 or AFTER???

Thanks for replies!

MRK