Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 

ruthan

Win98SE debug,normal boot freezing + Rloew patches (RAM/SATA/NVSIZE/AHCI) installation debugging, NVU 82 drivers

Recommended Posts

rloew    90

RFDISK or my MBR will not help with NTFS under DOS or Windows 9x.

Paragon is not complaining. It is asking. Tell it you want LBA access.

I don't see these microfreezes. You might see one once in a while if you used FIXEOI.

The maximum amount of 32-Bit RAM depends upon the BIOS and PCi/PCI-E Hardware. I did note that at the beginning of both the Readme and Manual. When I wrote the Manual I had not seen a system with less than 3GiB of available RAM. If you want more RAM, you will have to use smaller Video Cards.

Since you have less than 3GiB, you don't need to specify Numhandles for HIMEM.SYS

HIMEMX is OK but the Patched IO.SYS probably is not.

The documentation refers to HIMEMEX, not HIMEMX with respect to PROHOOK. This is used for the RAMDisks and the 64-Bit Memory API Package.

You can use generic RAMDisks up to a few hundred Megabytes total. For larger, you need mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ruthan    1
Quote

 

RFDISK or my MBR will not help with NTFS under DOS or Windows 9x.

Paragon is not complaining. It is asking. Tell it you want LBA access.

 

  Sorry, im dont know too much about Paragon, but error message looks read only, where i should change that LBA options? I could be wrong, but looks complaining style of message, in list is missing Windows 98 line and i cant assing any letter to ntfs partions.

ParagonNTFSProblem.thumb.png.37ba212ff46e4f9fa0bbeb18346fec9a.png

   It think that you LBA check reporting ok status.

Quote

I don't see these microfreezes. You might see one once in a while if you used FIXEOI.

Microfreezes:

   I dont know anything specific about it, only that on some machines i having  them, i dont remember that on original Windows 9x machine. I can measure them, i will post Fraps log with frames per second, game running smooth around 90 FPS (there would be some cap in game or drivers, 90 is enough so i dont care), but every 15-40 second, there are freze as i said 200-500 ms, its not occasional.. is periodic, no 1 minute without it and its in all games which i tested..   Game is wanting on sometime. 
   You already mentioned similar mouse freeze, in discussion about NVsize patch a optimal INT patch.  

   Would help something like list of device or interrupts, or its possible to do some logging what system exactly doing?

 Ram limit:

Quote

The maximum amount of 32-Bit RAM depends upon the BIOS and PCi/PCI-E Hardware. I did note that at the beginning of both the Readme and Manual. When I wrote the Manual I had not seen a system with less than 3GiB of available RAM. If you want more RAM, you will have to use smaller Video Cards.   

     Ok, didnt know what you means by this sentense in context of patch, its pretty generic statement.. I there would be something about, that you could have much less than 3GB, it would be better for understanding of text.   Im ok with 2.5 GB of RAM, i dont care, even 512 MB would be enough for gaming. Worst results which i saw in 32 bit was only 9xx MB, is on modern MB, were vender is lazy to do proper memory map for 32 systems.. Jaclaz i think too had MB with 1500 MB. I would be nice if in every MB manual would be something like this from Supermicro:


SuperMicroMemoryMapps.jpg.1d5b5a757eae093813dde7984bc2cb6d.jpg 

Quote

Since you have less than 3GiB, you don't need to specify Numhandles for HIMEM.SYS

   Ok but was unclean, if this is related to amount  physical RAM, or RAM after patch..

Quote

 

HIMEMX is OK but the Patched IO.SYS probably is not.

The documentation refers to HIMEMEX, not HIMEMX with respect to PROHOOK. This is used for the RAMDisks and the 64-Bit Memory API Package.

You can use generic RAMDisks up to a few hundred Megabytes total. For larger, you need mine.

 

  I have used himemX because of memory limitation options.. and for too Dos as Himem.sys replacement for use of EMM386 to access to extended memory or clean lower 640 Kb conventional Ram.


  So with your patch and less than 2.75 GB i can know use original unpatched hymem.sys?  
   I even didnt know that himemex and Himemx are 2 different things.. 

  IO.sys to be honest i dont even know, for what is this file used, is only for Windows boot, or its still used after Windows boot, for "normal" system usage?

Edited by ruthan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rloew    90

I don't know enough about Paragon. Try setting Windows 2000. If not, click Cancel.

If you are using FIXEOI, you might see these type of freezes. If not, then I have no idea what the problem is.

I lowered the minimum estimate to 2.5GiB in the Readme but didn't in the Manual. As I said, only a few Computers have less than 3GiB available.

Even the Motherboard manual cannot tell you how much 32-Bit RAM is available as it varies with the Cards used.

The minimum number of Handles needed by HIMEM.SYS depends upon the available 32-Bit RAM. Below 2.75GB, the default 48 Handles are enough.

HIMEMX is a third part alternative for HIMEM.
HIMEMEX is my Non-XMS 32/64-Bit Manager for my RAMDisks and MEMORY64 Packages. It does not replace HIMEM.

I have never looked at the modified IO.SYS. It may limit RAM on it's own. Do not use it with my Patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ruthan    1
Quote

I don't know enough about Paragon. Try setting Windows 2000. If not, click Cancel.

Paragon - if got it right, this screen only show which partition could be on computer visible in which OS.. Its just view nothing else.
For me is important message that vanilla Windows 9.x can work with NTFS partition bigger than 8.4 GB..

BTW i though than you are using large disk with Windows 98 and NTFS, so you have i know solution, i dont mind to change Paragon any other NFTS solution..
 

Quote

If you are using FIXEOI, you might see these type of freezes. If not, then I have no idea what the problem is.

     What is FIXEOI, i forgot to ask last time, i checked Fraps.log, its framerate per second and freezes are periodical, exactly every 15 seconds..

Quote

Even the Motherboard manual cannot tell you how much 32-Bit RAM is available as it varies with the Cards used.

  But could give you good guest and worst scenario as Supermicro, but this not import for me.
 

Quote

Hime*

   Thanks for explanation, so i wil use vanila himem.sys
 

Quote

I have never looked at the modified IO.SYS. It may limit RAM on it's own. Do not use it with my Patch.

   I have tried replace modified io.sys which is working with your patch, with vanilla from clean Windows 98Se installation, i have got System protection error during boot, multiple times, so i reverted to patched io.sys.

New problems, after ram patch instalation..
I just have time to more testing after patch installation, there are new problems, like usually :( , once right after boot, once after game was started and shutdown, control panels, stopping to working, i double click and nothing, once i tried to check Task manager and lots of Rundll32 processes were here. What it could be, what info you need to fix it? Im writing once, but i worked with computer maybe hour and every boot, after few minutes of work in explorer it was broken as these are still same things and otherwise Hardware memory, temperature etc, all is ok, i swear on it.. Its software bug.

Edited by ruthan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ruthan    1
1 hour ago, ruthan said:

Paragon - if got it right, this screen only show which partition could be on computer visible in which OS.. Its just view nothing else.
For me is important message that vanilla Windows 9.x can work with NTFS partition bigger than 8.4 GB..

BTW i though than you are using large disk with Windows 98 and NTFS, so you have i know solution, i dont mind to change Paragon any other NFTS solution..
 

     What is FIXEOI, i forgot to ask last time, i checked? Fraps.log, its framerate per second and freezes are periodical, exactly every 15 seconds..

  But could give you good guest and worst scenario as Supermicro, but this not import for me.
 

   Thanks for explanation, so i wil use vanila himem.sys
 

   I have tried replace modified io.sys which is working with your patch, with vanilla from clean Windows 98Se installation, i have got System protection error during boot, multiple times, so i reverted to patched io.sys.

New problems, after ram patch instalation..
I just have time to more testing after patch installation, there are new problems, like usually :( , once right after boot, once after game was started and shutdown, control panels, stopping to working, i double click and nothing, once i tried to check Task manager and lots of Rundll32 processes were here. What it could be, what info you need to fix it? Im writing once, but i worked with computer maybe hour and every boot, after few minutes of work in explorer it was broken as these are still same things and otherwise Hardware memory, temperature etc, all is ok, i swear on it.. Its software bug.

Update: Vanilla himem.sys without any parameter just not working, are you sure that 2.75 GB Limit? Black screen freeze during boot.
Update2: himem.sys with /Numhandle*=64 is booting well, but instability is still here, i only had slower GPU Geforce 6600, because Geforce7950GT not worked without patch.. Before Rloew patches system was stable, only microfreezes were there. My other systems are usually stable in Windows 98 stability terms..
   Errors are 2 sorts, Nvidia something even in 2d (control panel NVCPL. dll or NVSCV.dll) or Explorer+Rundll problems, something i get Rundll or Explorer errors message right after boot and user log on.

Update3: I just tested microfreeze without NIC in machine and without audio - they are still there, i originally thought that related to slow storage performance running in 16 bit MS DOS mode, but its also fixed by Sata patch, so source is elsewere. 

 

 

Edited by ruthan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rloew    90

I use Hard Disks up to 6TB with 98SE. I never said I used NTFS with 9x. I never installed Paragon or any other Driver.

If you don't know what FIXEOI is, then you don't have it installed and shouldn't worry about it.

15 Seconds is the timeout period for IOS. Something buggy may be timing out and then causing a momentary hang when it retries.

I use a modified IO.SYS to deal with various other issues but it is not modified to affect RAM usage.
I use an unmodified HIMEM.SYS.

I have seen reports of problems in a couple of Computers using HIMEM. Try the /MACHINE:1 option.

As far as the new problems are concerned. Are they all associated with game playing or do any occur without games.
Some games, especially DOS based ones have problems with more than 2GiB of RAM.
You can try adding MaxPhysPage=7FFFC to the [386Enh] Section of SYSTEM.INI to reduce your RAM to just below 2GiB.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ruthan    1
Quote

I use Hard Disks up to 6TB with 98SE. I never said I used NTFS with 9x. I never installed Paragon or any other Driver.

  So you are using only FAT32 as filesystem? What FS you are using in modern Windows still FAT32? Or something else.

Quote

 I use a modified IO.SYS to deal with various other issues but it is not modified to affect RAM usage.
I use an unmodified HIMEM.SYS.

   I as i know when you have more than 512 MB you have to modify io.sys for installation or first boot after.. Its in guides which i saw.

Quote

I have seen reports of problems in a couple of Computers using HIMEM. Try the /MACHINE:1 option.

 Ok i will test it.

Quote

As far as the new problems are concerned. Are they all associated with game playing or do any occur without games.

  Absolutetly not, gaming is last thing which is working same as before patching (only problem are still freezes), because they are relatively independ on rest of OS, otherwise classical windows explorer work is buggy and there are these Nvidia and Explorer errors. 

Quote

 Some games, especially DOS based ones have problems with more than 2GiB of RAM.

   We are not so far at all, i just need to make Windows gaming work.. after maybe later DOS. And i dont mind limit RAM to 2 GB.

Quote

You can try adding MaxPhysPage=7FFFC to the [386Enh] Section of SYSTEM.INI to reduce your RAM to just below 2GiB.

Ok i wil.

Deeper dungeons:
Because i really want to give these patches change, before i sell all my specific AMD970 machine Win 98 related HW, expect GPu for Unraid and USB Lans +audios.. Here are all my system setting related files, because of sensitivity  (product keys) i will send you my registry clone to mail, in package are:
- autoexec and config, pleas ignore everything except Windows 98 code branch, its old garbage, i need working Windows first.. for dos, is Dosbox good alternative.
- Autoruns list, list of running drivers and startup programs etc..  You could check if you are also using this programs, i dont have too much of them,
- List of installed programs, i dont have too much of them,
- System.ini
-Bootlog.txt
- Full Registry backup - is in email 

  Here is link for download:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2741044/Win98RloewPatches/!ForAnalysis.zip

  If you need more i will provide more.

BTW i wonder, how my users of your Nvidia or Sata or RAM patches, you have if is not traders secrets? I want to know it, just to imagine how much were tested, in real life.. I know that i also depends on users variability, because you could sell lots of license to some company were are all users configuration very similar and they dont doing with system too much, because they afraid to broke that working tools..

    This personal support is great, but i really thing that you need some diagnostic utilities to gather and checks users machine data and check state of patches, give user better feedback etc.. And because you are not for some reason doing that, if i will see that you patches will really work for me, i will write it for myself and community, i dont want to offend you, but this sort of patches, is from my point only half of good delivery..
 
    Write some code, this will change and check values in text files, check filesizes and file dates and check a change value is the registry and collect some setting info and pack it into zip packed ready to mail, its not easy coding, when you have knowledge which file and value you have to check..  Further steps are some intelligent installers which you as if user want installer optimal feature, which are elsewhere hidden in somewhere in the depth of manuals..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rloew    90

I use mainly FAT32 in XP. I created  a couple of NTFS Partitions to download files larger then 4GiB, but I no longer need them since I ported my 64-Bit FAT32 Patches to XP.
Window 7 and later require NTFS Root Partitions. Everything else is FAT32.

I have never obtained a copy of the modified IO.SYS you mentioned. As far as I know, it is used to enter Safe Mode without my Patch.
With my RAM Patch there is no need for a modified IO.SYS, SYSTEM.INI or SYSTEM.CB.

I have not seen Explorer issues with my RAM Patch. You have a lot of programs running at startup that might be an issue.
Many nVidia Errors are related to leftovers from earlier installations that are not cleaned up properly by the uninstaller.

You cannot sell your AMD970 with any of my Patches installed. They would need their own licenses.

I have already replied with comments about your Registry.

AUTOEXEC.BAT:
The PATCHMEM Program is run once during installation. It should not be rerun by AUTOEXEC.BAT
LETASSIG has a bug that might cause issues with some Partition managers.

The broken Icon has nothing to do with me.

The RAM Patch has been around for 10 years. The vast majority buy my Patch and I either get an  "it works" message or never hear from them. There is a free demo so people can test it for themselves.
The nVidia Patch has a Diagnostic tool to assess the need for the Patch and the Patcher Program verifies whether the Version of the Driver can be Patched.
The SATA Patch is not a polished Package as I already stated.

A Diagnostic Utility needs something to diagnose for. Also there is no way a Diagnostic Utility can know that someone is going to drop U98SESP3 on top of the Patch at a later date, like you did.
And it cannot anticipate issues related to systems that become prevalent after the software is written, or as in your case, where there is a pile of unanticipated Software already installed.

Personal service is the best solution when problems are rare and generally unexpected. If there were a pattern to issues, I would release an update, either to the code or the documentation.

Intelligent Installers are of limited use with these Packages since the Options are determined by trial and error rather than the User knowing what he needs.
They also would have to be written in DOS as they are applied before Windows can even be booted.
They are basically the lazy way out for people who won't RTFM.

Edited by rloew
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LoneCrusader    95
9 hours ago, ruthan said:

BTW i wonder, how my users of your Nvidia or Sata or RAM patches, you have if is not traders secrets? I want to know it, just to imagine how much were tested, in real life.. I know that i also depends on users variability, because you could sell lots of license to some company were are all users configuration very similar and they dont doing with system too much, because they afraid to broke that working tools..

You seem to have a very strange set of problems with your various experiments. Being a frequent user and tester of most of rloew's programs and patches I can say I have never yet seen any issues like the problems you are having. I believe most of your problem comes from trying to move around previously installed copies of the OS. I know it is annoying to have to re-setup updates and programs for each new machine, but this is questionable at best to start with. Any time you do this you should at LEAST go into the Device Manager in Safe Mode and remove any and all devices BEFORE even attempting to boot the system on different hardware. Failure to do this is asking for trouble. Better yet, you should do that step and then manually go into the ENUM key in the registry and manually delete anything that is left under \PCI, \MF, \USB, \USBSTOR, and possibly others (do not remove \ROOT) after the Device Manager cleanup.

You should try clean installs using only the base system + rloew's patches and see if you have any issues under that configuration before you try moving a pre-installed system that exponentially multiplies the variables for failure. If it works in the clean setup and doesn't in your moved setup, then the problem lies somewhere in your pre-installed environment.

Edited by LoneCrusader
clarification on reg deletes, thanks rloew :)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rloew    90

If you empty the ENUM Key, leave the ROOT Subkey intact otherwise you will have a hard time restoring Networking. You would also have to manually install either ACPI or PCI Bus to redetect most Hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ruthan    1

I you write more later, i only tested AMD970 + other storage to be sure, with clean Englist (to be sure) installation (Sata, Ram and Nvidia patch), but problems.. are still there some there are 3 main possibilities:
1) Im doing mistake when i applicate patches
2) There is still some Windows bug, which is unhandled by the patch
3) Error it patches itsefl

 So problem is not in my mature installation, i have got some rundll errors during HW detection (i will post picture later), often im getting multiple registry autorecovery.. Im not able to boot into normal boot, after Nvidia patched driver instalattion.


  My guess is problem with ram patch or nvidia patched 82.xx driver in combination with 512 MB video card. RAM is limited to 1024MB, no other Max*.. in System.ini, 
  i have managed work with vanila  io.sys + himem.sys.

  I dont know why on my mature installation is himemx.exe start trigger even in safe mode.. No MagicISO driver simply clean installation, only drivers and total commander and some portable versions of utilities..

  Here is 1st instation error - ram patch already installed:
2017-08-15%2018.38.13.jpg

  After i have got few rundll32 errors, but installation finished, first part until first reboot is always fine.

  Now even im trying to reboot after Nividia proper driver installatim im getting in Boolog last line:
00165cd7 DEVICEINITSUCESS =VDEF 

// Split8mb is installed too.

  Main purpose of reinstall was chekc microfreezes, but it showed that there are more problems..

Edited by ruthan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ruthan    1
Quote

I use mainly FAT32 in XP. I created  a couple of NTFS Partitions to download files larger then 4GiB, but I no longer need them since I ported my 64-Bit FAT32 Patches to XP.
Window 7 and later require NTFS Root Partitions. Everything else is FAT32.

     Ok, but majority of your patches user  i think want to use NTFS, so would be nice to test it and have tutorial how to use it.

Quote

I have never obtained a copy of the modified IO.SYS you mentioned. As far as I know, it is used to enter Safe Mode without my Patch.
With my RAM Patch there is no need for a modified IO.SYS, SYSTEM.INI or SYSTEM.CB.

 You can create it in few seconds, just install, here is patch:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2741044/Win98RloewPatches/w98-IoSafeModePatch.zip

 There is even some patched version for download, but im really not sure if it would be same:
http://home.exetel.com.au/phelum/w98.htm

  I also using Himemx 3.32 , i know checked that there is probably new version, but its not related to clean instalation problems, same as io.sys.. But probably all users without your patch with 512+ MB, have to use himemx so it need to be tested..

Quote

I have not seen Explorer issues with my RAM Patch. You have a lot of programs running at startup that might be an issue.
Many nVidia Errors are related to leftovers from earlier installations that are not cleaned up properly by the uninstaller.

    No, not lots of programs, i checked msconfig and you have autoruns log, there are only few thing, there Nvidia drivers, Magic iso and Teamviewer 6.
    Do you use 512 MB videocard and Unofficial Nvidia 82.xx driver, because otherwise i dont wonder if you would be errors free, i never better that so unstable system, i style, when im affraid to click at something.
   Nvdia leftovers, i would be really angry, i will remove Geforce 6600 from other PC, i will use unmodified Nvidia driver to show that with proper driver it would be ok, there potencionally could be some left over, but i dont believe too much in this theory, its lousy one.

Quote

AUTOEXEC.BAT:
The PATCHMEM Program is run once during installation. It should not be rerun by AUTOEXEC.BAT
LETASSIG has a bug that might cause issues with some Partition managers.

  Patchmem - you are right, i find this today. 
  Letassing i dont use any partition manager for Windows 98 now, so we can ignore it,but dont need it, i will uninstall it anyway.

Quote

The broken Icon has nothing to do with me.

   Without patches icon was fine.
 

Quote

A Diagnostic Utility needs something to diagnose for. Also there is no way a Diagnostic Utility can know that someone is going to drop U98SESP3 on top of the Patch at a later date, like you did.

  Diagnostic utility - i dont see any problem to check if is SP3 installed before installation of patches or later recheck if patches are ok.. because could be broken by later SP3 installation, or  other users or programs actions. Its like sfc scan in modern Windows 98 or Steam game files check, same principle.
 

Quote

They are basically the lazy way out for people who won't RTFM.

   Be honest we are using Windows because we want to read manuals, its waste of time, when code is good enough.. Linux people often trying to keep thing too complex and user unfriendly.. and thats why Windows are still winning. I never understood this philosophy i always tried help user how much as is possible in inside problems, its better way is alway detect possible problem and predict and handle exception inside program, that add lots of switches would maybe user need to apply and maybe it will help him.

  Patches have some fixed errors history, im quite sure that i hited other one.

Edited by ruthan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ruthan    1
Quote

 

You seem to have a very strange set of problems with your various experiments. Being a frequent user and tester of most of rloew's programs and patches I can say I have never yet seen any issues like the problems you are having. I believe most of your problem comes from trying to move around previously installed copies of the OS. I know it is annoying to have to re-setup updates and programs for each new machine, but this is questionable at best to start with. Any time you do this you should at LEAST go into the Device Manager in Safe Mode and remove any and all devices BEFORE even attempting to boot the system on different hardware. Failure to do this is asking for trouble. Better yet, you should do that step and then manually go into the ENUM key in the registry and manually delete anything that is left under \PCI, \MF, \USB, \USBSTOR, and possibly others (do not remove \ROOT) after the Device Manager cleanup.

You should try clean installs using only the base system + rloew's patches and see if you have any issues under that configuration before you try moving a pre-installed system that exponentially multiplies the variables for failure. If it works in the clean setup and doesn't in your moved setup, then the problem lies somewhere in your pre-installed environment.

 

    I could be always user fault, stupid user, it could.. As is said in one my favorite movie, lets for moment assume that im (user) totally stupid :) 

   I dont like that clean installation solution, i use are usually doing it, when you dont understand something and you usually hit same problem late, its cowards way and its ultimate developers excuse before they are forced to fix own bugs . Yeah when i broke something, i have parition snapshot and i could go week back, but otherwise in have 13 years old Windows XP instalaltion, which is still fine, i have 7 years old Windows 7 install all fine...

   But i did it, reinstalled Windows 98, i didnt used himemx and patched and i still have error even in instalation, but HW is 100% by other OS, which are running fine, memtest is fine, temperatures are fines.. There is not way how to limit RAM is in bios or DDR3 512 MB stick to show that problem has to be in code.

 Did you tested Ram patch + Nvidia 512 MB card + UND 82.xx driver together? If not is hard to say anything valid.. I had quite stable system before i messed with rloews patches, i you wrote i removed all HW from Device manager, detection was fine, only problems where with Audio codecs (no usable audio device in multimedia panel).

I really thing that problem is in specific hardware unsuspected combination or developers too old school attitude (he is so good that doing something which nobody else is able, but that lack of competitions, not need force him to make thing more simple to diagnose. Its a bit analogy what Einstein once said, when you can say it simply, you dont understand it.. Code could be very complex inside, but outer world user friedly solution which trying to expect problems are usually winning )..  But enough about it, i just need to fix it every possible way and see that this code is really working and i will write checker myself, i would need only simple hints, what is where modified etc..

Edited by ruthan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rloew    90

I've seen errors like the one you photographed. They seem to appear at random during Installation. I think there is some bug in the Windows CD. When it happens, I start over and the problem doesn't reoccur.

A clean installation would be as follows:

1. Partition and Format a Hard Drive with at least one Partition.
2. Place the PATCHMEM, PTCHSATA, SPLIT8MB, PATCHNVC, PATCHOPT and PURGEHDC Programs and the SATA.INF File on the Hard Drive.
3. Boot from the Windows Installer CD and Install using the SETUP /p i Option.
4. Do not Partition or Format from the CD.
5. Run the Installer until the first crash.
6. Press RESET.
7. Select Command Prompt Only from the Boot Menu.
8. Run:  PATCHMEM /M
9. Run the PTCHSATA Program.
10. Add a line to run the SPLIT8MB Program to your AUTOEXEC.BAT File.
11. Copy the SATA.INF File to the WINDOWS\INF Folder.
12. Reboot and complete the Installation.
13. If you get a BSOD relating to the Disk Drives, run PURGEHDC P  and reboot.
14. Install the nVidia 82.69 Driver but do not reboot.
15. Go to the WINDOWS\SYSTEM Folder
16. Rename NVCORE.VXD to NVCORE.BAK
17. Run:  PATCHNVC NVCORE.BAK NVCORE.VXD
18. Rename PCI.VXD to PCI.BAK
19. Run:  PATCHOPT PCI.BAK PCI.VXD
20. Reboot

You may not like clean Installs, but it is the only way to diagnose problems.
I have been generally successful porting over existing Setups, but not always.
There can be one or more programs that have incompatibilites. How are you going to find the problem ones when you throw a whole pile of them together.

These Patches have nothing to do with NTFS. They run on anything accessible from DOS. If necessary, they can be run from Safe Mode.

The Patching Program you linked to appears to alter other files rather than IO.SYS. It appears to automate the well known workarounds.
The Phelum Patch is for a Partition discovery bug in IO.SYS that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. I posted a better fix years ago.

Your Computer would not even boot without my Patches so how can you say the Icon wasn't broken without my Patch.

My Patches don't care if U98SESP3 was installed before. The problem is if you run U98SESP3 after. To catch that a Diagnostic would have to be run continuously, as sfc does, creating undesired overhead.
One of the objections to Windows ME is sfc.

There has been a trend away from manuals, but that doesn't mean the program is easy to use. They just want to sell you a book or sign up for product support later.

It is a lot easier for someone to follow a series of steps in a Manual, then expect a Program to keep track, even over reboots in this case, of where it is in a sequence.
The Windows Installer, tries to do this during Device Detection, but a problem just results in something being left out.

Actually the RAM Patch Code for Windows 98SE has not changed in 8 years. The updates were mainly problems with the Installer itself or the documentation. I am still waiting for an actionable "Bug" from you.

Of course I tested the RAM Patch, 512MB Card and 82.69 Driver together. All of my development Machines have the RAM Patch.
I would not have been able to develop the nVidia Patch without creating this combination.

As I already said, the vast majority of my Customers have no problem installing my Patches, so my Patches and any diagnostics are already easy enough for them. Even a stereotypical "housewife" can follow a sequence of instructions in a recipe book. I am not going to buy or otherwise obtain every piece of Hardware and every version of Software to create a diagnostic that can cover every possibility.

I would like to see how far you get trying to convince Microsoft to follow your suggestions.

Blanket removal of all Devices is problematical. Audio Codecs are not Hardware Devices so they should not be removed. Same with the ENUM\ROOT Key in the Registry which contains the Initial Enumerator and Network Stack Devices.

Edited by rloew
Corrected Installation Instructions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LoneCrusader    95
5 hours ago, ruthan said:

    I could be always user fault, stupid user, it could.. As is said in one my favorite movie, lets for moment assume that im (user) totally stupid :) 

   I dont like that clean installation solution, i use are usually doing it, when you dont understand something and you usually hit same problem late, its cowards way and its ultimate developers excuse before they are forced to fix own bugs . Yeah when i broke something, i have parition snapshot and i could go week back, but otherwise in have 13 years old Windows XP instalaltion, which is still fine, i have 7 years old Windows 7 install all fine...

   But i did it, reinstalled Windows 98, i didnt used himemx and patched and i still have error even in instalation, but HW is 100% by other OS, which are running fine, memtest is fine, temperatures are fines.. There is not way how to limit RAM is in bios or DDR3 512 MB stick to show that problem has to be in code.

I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm just pointing out the fact that moving a pre-installed system is asking for trouble, plain and simple. It's not that there is anything wrong with doing so, but moving a pre-installed system is something to be done when necessary and when you have already tested the target system with a clean install to verify compatibility. You can't just throw it on a new machine and expect everything to work properly. Sometimes that happens, but you can't assume that it will always (or even usually) work.

5 hours ago, ruthan said:

  Did you tested Ram patch + Nvidia 512 MB card + UND 82.xx driver together? If not is hard to say anything valid.. I had quite stable system before i messed with rloews patches, i you wrote i removed all HW from Device manager, detection was fine, only problems where with Audio codecs (no usable audio device in multimedia panel).

In all honesty I have probably tested rloew's patches on more systems than anyone else, maybe even rloew himself. I have quite a stockpile of various hardware, mostly Pentium 4 era and later that I have either stockpiled specifically for 9x compatibility, been given by some friends I have in a large organization when they were replacing, or purchased specifically to test 9x compatibility.

Not too long ago I started out on a "quest" to test Windows 95 and Windows 98 on each subsequent set of Intel chipsets from the time when they were supported (845-865-875) up to the present (X99, I don't have X299 yet). I have tested 9x boards using Intel 9xx chipsets, P35, X38, X48, X58, X79, and X99, all without any strange issues except those cause by Intel-branded motherboards that have a garbage BIOS incompatible with 9x. (Do I need to prove it with screenshots? :whistle: lol) I only have 2 older AMD nForce3/4 systems but the patches work there as well. I have the full range of nVidia 7xxx cards; 7200GS, 7600GS, 7800GS, 7800GTX, 7950GT, and possibly others. I actually did a lot of testing for the nVidia problems to help rloew as well.

5 hours ago, ruthan said:

 I really thing that problem is in specific hardware unsuspected combination or developers too old school attitude (he is so good that doing something which nobody else is able, but that lack of competitions, not need force him to make thing more simple to diagnose. Its a bit analogy what Einstein once said, when you can say it simply, you dont understand it.. Code could be very complex inside, but outer world user friedly solution which trying to expect problems are usually winning )..  But enough about it, i just need to fix it every possible way and see that this code is really working and i will write checker myself, i would need only simple hints, what is where modified etc..

It's possible that your hardware combination can cause issues. Any motherboard with an Intel BIOS newer than 8xx chipset is garbage for 9x. It's possible other things may cause issues as well, but you need to be able to pin it down to a very specific point by removing ALL other variables from the situation. Once you do this, if there is indeed a bug of some kind, I'm sure rloew will address it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×