Xp to Win98 coming home.

[98 Guy]

Rod wrote:

> P4 3Ghz / 800mhz 512ram
> 80Gb sata
> intel 915GAG mobo.

This one -> Intel Desktop Board D915GAG ?

> Can I run my darling old W98se on this?

According to this:

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Product_Filter.aspx?ProductID=1672

Win-98 drivers are not available.

However, that board has the 915G chipset:

http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/sb/cs-011594.htm

If you follow the download link for the 915G (chipset software
installation utility) and select win-98se from the drop-down list,
you'll get this:

http://tinyurl.com/2mb9n2

If you look at the Release Notes for the first item on the list:

http://downloadmirror.intel.com/8177/ENG/relnotes.htm

Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility
6.3.0.1007 Production Version
Release Notes

Yes, it does not list win-98 at the top of the document, but ignore
that. It does list the 915G chipset though.

It's never been clear to me if the Intel 915 chipset was fully
supported under win-98. You might be in luck if you install that
driver after installing win-98.

So try it:

http://tinyurl.com/35q99h

One more thing. There is another version of the Intel Chipset
Software Installation Utility, version 6.3.0.1008:

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/det...ctid=36&dwnldid=5830&agr=n&lang=eng&prdmap=36

Try it as a last resort if version 1007 doesn't work.

> What do I need to do before installation from XP pro SP2
> just reformat?

Yes - boot the system from a DOS floppy with fdisk and format on it.
Obtain the updated version of fdisk if you don't have it (it will be
dated May 2000).

 

[Rod]

Xp to Win98 coming home.

I have had just a week of XP, and it's driving me nuts,
updates, patches, activations.
This is seriously not a fun computing experience.

So.........
P4 3Ghz / 800mhz 512ram
80Gb sata
intel 915GAG mobo.

Can I run my darling old W98se on this?

What do I need to do before installation from XP pro SP2
just reformat?

I run a large Vis Foxpro database,
and a lrge image database and use usenet
for newsgroups.
no gaming and no whizz bang utilities required.

am I in luck?

Thanks for any advice, pointers and potential snags.

 

[alvinamorey@notmail.com]

Re: Xp to Win98 coming home.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:05:58 +0800, "Rod" <pookiethai@iprimus.com.au>
wrote:

>I have had just a week of XP, and it's driving me nuts,
>updates, patches, activations.
>This is seriously not a fun computing experience.
>

That was my experience with XP too. I hate the POS.
I'll stick with Win98. OR I have been considering upgrading to WinME.
because of the better USB support. I figure I'll just clone my
installation on another HD, and see what happens when I run ME install
on top of 98.

I've never seriously considered changing to another OS, but there is
no way I could live with XP, and Vista is not even a possibliity. I'm
starting to look into Linux. I'd much prefer to just stay with win98,
but it's getting harder and harder to find support and drivers for it,
not to mention software that works with it.

I dont use games or any power usage apps, so I really dont need
anything above 98 or ME. It's the software developers and computer
manufacturers who are making it difficult if not impossible to keep
using Win98.

 

[Dan]

Re: Xp to Win98 coming home.

I would not switch to Windows ME because although it has better general USB
support it has trouble with backwards compatibility with many older games and
it is used even less nowadays than Windows 98. It is also easier to exit to
DOS with 98 Second Edition than Windows ME.

"alvinamorey@notmail.com" wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:05:58 +0800, "Rod" <pookiethai@iprimus.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >I have had just a week of XP, and it's driving me nuts,
> >updates, patches, activations.
> >This is seriously not a fun computing experience.
> >
>
> That was my experience with XP too. I hate the POS.
> I'll stick with Win98. OR I have been considering upgrading to WinME.
> because of the better USB support. I figure I'll just clone my
> installation on another HD, and see what happens when I run ME install
> on top of 98.
>
> I've never seriously considered changing to another OS, but there is
> no way I could live with XP, and Vista is not even a possibliity. I'm
> starting to look into Linux. I'd much prefer to just stay with win98,
> but it's getting harder and harder to find support and drivers for it,
> not to mention software that works with it.
>
> I dont use games or any power usage apps, so I really dont need
> anything above 98 or ME. It's the software developers and computer
> manufacturers who are making it difficult if not impossible to keep
> using Win98.
>
>

 

[Rod]

Re: Xp to Win98 coming home.


"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4746EB71.62D7B839@Guy.com...

> According to this:
> http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Product_Filter.aspx?ProductID=1672
> Win-98 drivers are not available.
> However, that board has the 915G chipset:
> http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/sb/cs-011594.htm

This appears to be a <very> helpful response,
thank you very much indeed 98guy, I am indebted.
I'll keep you posted.
Being as I can buy P4's for around $60, I'll persist with
the learning curve with XP, as a part time hobby
whilst I carry on with 98
( I couldn't believe something like hiding the file extensions
could be such a source of frustration, I knew then it
was going to be a long learning curve)

Thanks also Alvin and Dan, with small footprint desktops,
it's easy to have two computers whilst one adjusts,
but the "bunch of bastards".... the wires behind the boxes
is something to behold
R

 

[Buffalo]

Re: Xp to Win98 coming home.


"Rod" <pookiethai@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:uutmUldLIHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I have had just a week of XP, and it's driving me nuts,
> updates, patches, activations.
> This is seriously not a fun computing experience.
>
> So.........
> P4 3Ghz / 800mhz 512ram
> 80Gb sata
> intel 915GAG mobo.
>
> Can I run my darling old W98se on this?
>
> What do I need to do before installation from XP pro SP2
> just reformat?
>
> I run a large Vis Foxpro database,
> and a lrge image database and use usenet
> for newsgroups.
> no gaming and no whizz bang utilities required.
>
> am I in luck?
>
> Thanks for any advice, pointers and potential snags.

Win2000Pro is another OS choice and it is very stable and still supported by
MS.

 

[Rod]

Re: Xp to Win98 coming home.


"Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message

> Win2000Pro is another OS choice and it is very stable and still supported
by
> MS.

Thank you,
I'll have a look around for the software.

 

[98 Guy]

Re: Xp to Win98 coming home.

Buffalo wrote:

> Win2000Pro is another OS choice and it is very stable and still
> supported by MS.

Win-2k "pro" ???

Was there a "pro" and "non-pro" version of 2k?

As much as I am a non-regular-user of any NT OS, I have moderate
experience in installing and tweaking them, and would say that anyone
considering either dual-boot (win-98 and some version of NT) or moving
completely away from 98 to NT, and if you don't have a burning desire
for or previous experience with win-2K, that you skip 2K and go right
to XP.

 

[Buffalo]

Re: Xp to Win98 coming home.


"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:474B76CC.8F7E97A9@Guy.com...
> Buffalo wrote:
>
> > Win2000Pro is another OS choice and it is very stable and still
> > supported by MS.
>
> Win-2k "pro" ???
>
> Was there a "pro" and "non-pro" version of 2k?
>
> As much as I am a non-regular-user of any NT OS, I have moderate
> experience in installing and tweaking them, and would say that anyone
> considering either dual-boot (win-98 and some version of NT) or moving
> completely away from 98 to NT, and if you don't have a burning desire
> for or previous experience with win-2K, that you skip 2K and go right
> to XP.

Why?
I would be interested in your reasoning, esp if the user is not into gaming.
PS: Yes, I dual boot Win98SE and Win2000Pro.
And no, I do not know why it is called Win2000Pro rather than just Win2000,
unless one is a server and the other is not.

 

[98 Guy]

Re: Xp to Win98 coming home.

Buffalo wrote:

> > Was there a "pro" and "non-pro" version of 2k?

> And no, I do not know why it is called Win2000Pro rather than just
> Win2000, unless one is a server and the other is not.

There were 4 versions of 2K.

The most common is normally referred to as just "2K" even though, yes,
it is officially known as "2K pro". The other 3 were various server
versions. There was no "non-pro" version, so it's not clear why MS
added "pro" to the name.

> > anyone considering either dual-boot (win-98 and some version of
> > NT) or moving completely away from 98 to NT, and if you don't
> > have a burning desire for or previous experience with win-2K,
> > that you skip 2K and go right to XP.
>
> Why?
> I would be interested in your reasoning, esp if the user is not
> into gaming.

I think it's a lot of hassle to take a 2K CD and obtain/install all
the patches and service packs for it and bring it up the security or
functionality level of XP-sp2.

XP has better USB device support (which tends to be more important for
the average SOHO user).

About a year ago I/we built some new machines (core-2 duo's) for our
developers (2-gb ram, multiple 400 gb SATA hard drives, dual-head and
dual-monitor setup's) and they installed XP-pro as their main OS
(they've configured their systems for multiple OS's and can even run
Vista in a virtual window). Naturally they were running 2k up to that
point as their main OS.

I have binders full of Micro$oft software.

If I were building a new system for a friend or relative 2 or more
years ago, I would have installed 2K on it. Three years ago, it would
have been 98se.

If I were building a new system today, or within the past 2 years
(again for a friend or relative) I'd put XP-pro on it. Remember, I
wouldn't be paying a dime to MS or anyone else regardless what I was
installing on it, and I've got every OS from Win-95 to Vista available
to me, so OS cost or availability is not an issue.

 

[MEB]

Re: Xp to Win98 coming home.



"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:474CEB30.DE6450D4@Guy.com...
| Buffalo wrote:
|
| > > Was there a "pro" and "non-pro" version of 2k?
|
| > And no, I do not know why it is called Win2000Pro rather than just
| > Win2000, unless one is a server and the other is not.
|
| There were 4 versions of 2K.
|
| The most common is normally referred to as just "2K" even though, yes,
| it is officially known as "2K pro". The other 3 were various server
| versions. There was no "non-pro" version, so it's not clear why MS
| added "pro" to the name.
|
| > > anyone considering either dual-boot (win-98 and some version of
| > > NT) or moving completely away from 98 to NT, and if you don't
| > > have a burning desire for or previous experience with win-2K,
| > > that you skip 2K and go right to XP.
| >
| > Why?
| > I would be interested in your reasoning, esp if the user is not
| > into gaming.
|
| I think it's a lot of hassle to take a 2K CD and obtain/install all
| the patches and service packs for it and bring it up the security or
| functionality level of XP-sp2.
|
| XP has better USB device support (which tends to be more important for
| the average SOHO user).
|
| About a year ago I/we built some new machines (core-2 duo's) for our
| developers (2-gb ram, multiple 400 gb SATA hard drives, dual-head and
| dual-monitor setup's) and they installed XP-pro as their main OS
| (they've configured their systems for multiple OS's and can even run
| Vista in a virtual window). Naturally they were running 2k up to that
| point as their main OS.
|
| I have binders full of Micro$oft software.
|
| If I were building a new system for a friend or relative 2 or more
| years ago, I would have installed 2K on it. Three years ago, it would
| have been 98se.
|
| If I were building a new system today, or within the past 2 years
| (again for a friend or relative) I'd put XP-pro on it. Remember, I
| wouldn't be paying a dime to MS or anyone else regardless what I was
| installing on it, and I've got every OS from Win-95 to Vista available
| to me, so OS cost or availability is not an issue.

Well to each his own,, what I find unique [or perhaps not so]: anyone who
has run the various Microsoft OSs, generally never recommends the newest.
What I find rather discouraging is that just before VISTA came out, it was
still not recommended to use XP due to its numerous issues which everyone
hoped would be corrected by Service Pack 3 [yeah right]... now supposedly XP
* IS * the recommended OS [and those issues have not been fixed, just more
tolerance afforded].

Strangely, in the background, there has always been an OS which has always
exceeded Microsoft's OSs.. Linux...
There has always been a better graphical interface, Apple.
There has always been alternatives to waiting for Microsoft fixes to
correct flaws in its software [which have yet to produce a finished OS], and
yet millions keep jumping on the hamster wheel ....


--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________