Win98 questions

STRESSTEST · Post by **STRESSTEST** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:14 pm

I can't for the life of me remember what the deal is.

Two things I remember is that Win98SE had a limit on HD size and CPU speed. Someone wanna fill in the blanks?

HD size was 138 gigs I think and i cant remember about the CPU speed. Maybe there were patches? I know one addressed the HD up to 130+ gig....

TIA

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:52 pm

Fastest CPU I ever ran 98SE on was 1.6 GHz, can't think of anyone running it on something faster. There were no problems.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:55 pm

As far as I know, there is no maximum CPU speed for Win98. There are, however, patches available that address some CPU speed specific bugs

akula65 · Post by **akula65** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:29 pm

As I recall, Win98 SE can handle logical drives up to 4 Terabytes. There were BIOS limitations of that era that limited hard drives to the value you mentioned.

You might also be remembering this update:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/down ... efault.asp

Edit: I stand corrected (from the Windows 98 Resource Kit Book Online):

"FAT32 goes beyond the capabilities of FAT16. The most prominent feature is that it supports drives of up to 2 terabytes in size."

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:52 pm

IIRC the 98SE size limitation was a problem with the implementation of FAT32. At any rate I would say it is sloppy to use 98SE and FAT32 on anything larger then a 30 GB drive. Whoever needs this must really want some DOS program to work if they want to make 98SE work on a modern system with a larger then 120 GB hard drive.

akula65 · Post by **akula65** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:06 pm

Here's a list of various "barriers" and their source:

http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_driv ... rriers.htm

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:25 pm

Krom wrote:IIRC the 98SE size limitation was a problem with the implementation of FAT32. At any rate I would say it is sloppy to use 98SE and FAT32 on anything larger then a 30 GB drive. Whoever needs this must really want some DOS program to work if they want to make 98SE work on a modern system with a larger then 120 GB hard drive.

x2

DigiJo · Post by **DigiJo** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:55 pm

yep, big drives are not the problem in win98, you can make serveral partions not breaking the fat32 limit.

but win98se had problems with physical memory more then 512mb ram, i think it was a problem with the harddrive cache smartdisk if i recall right.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:56 pm

Win98 also had a problem with RAM over 512. YOuhad to edit a .ini file and add a line for it not to crash with 1 gig.

DarkShadow · Post by **DarkShadow** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:25 pm

I had Win98 SE on my XP 2100+ 1.7GHz and had it overclocked a little to 1820 Mhz with no problem.

Deadmeat · Post by **Deadmeat** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:19 am

And I ran 98SE with an XP2600+ and 512mb of DDR333. No sweat.

BUBBALOU · Post by **BUBBALOU** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:07 am

Microsoft WindowsÂ® 98 has 2 issues with HD limits, hardware is the the third

O/S:
WindowsÂ® 98 fdisk 64GB fix

The FAT 32 Limitation (124.55 GiB / 127.53 GB)
Microsoft WindowsÂ® 95B, 98 and WindowsÂ® Millennium Edition

Hardware: ATA Interface Limit (128 GiB / 137 GB) Barrier
If you do not have a motherboard that supports 48 bit Logical Block Addressing (LBA) then you need a ATA card that does

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:04 am

There was an AMD Athlon XP patch as well.

STRESSTEST · Post by **STRESSTEST** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:39 am

Tyranny wrote:
Krom wrote:IIRC the 98SE size limitation was a problem with the implementation of FAT32. At any rate I would say it is sloppy to use 98SE and FAT32 on anything larger then a 30 GB drive. Whoever needs this must really want some DOS program to work if they want to make 98SE work on a modern system with a larger then 120 GB hard drive.
x2

x3

I think it's one of the stupidest things to do myself, but he's bent on having it that way... Who?.. he knows who he is..

Anyway, thanks guys.

Nitrofox125 · Post by **Nitrofox125** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:47 pm

Why Win98? I mean, there's plenty of people who, given the opportunity to use WinXP or Linux or anything newer, they choose 98. What special features does Win98 have here that I'm missing?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:52 pm

Who knows, its like blind brand loyalty.

BUBBALOU · Post by **BUBBALOU** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:34 pm

Nitrofox125 wrote:Why Win98? I mean, there's plenty of people who, given the opportunity to use WinXP or Linux or anything newer, they choose 98. What special features does Win98 have here that I'm missing?

Probally the same reason people still use rotary phones. They refuse to buy new ones or even pay for the service on their line ( yes in some backwood states it's an option )

Or even better yet, those whom refuse to play anything other than Descent 1.

Ignorance is bliss

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:20 pm

CDN_Merlin wrote:Win98 also had a problem with RAM over 512. YOuhad to edit a .ini file and add a line for it not to crash with 1 gig.

Actually, you could just run msconfig and change it there as well. However, that only limited the ammount of RAM it would use.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:38 am

I have a 1.7ghz system that I can boot into Win98 if I want...but I never do.

heh.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:08 pm

Nitrofox125 wrote:Why Win98? I mean, there's plenty of people who, given the opportunity to use WinXP or Linux or anything newer, they choose 98. What special features does Win98 have here that I'm missing?

To run old programs/games. The "compatability" feature of XP sucks.