Im looking for a genuine copy of windows 98 se including licence, can anyone
help me out.
Regards Richard.
- posted
18 years ago
Windows 98 se wanted
Loading thread data ...
- posted
18 years ago
In message , Alex
Harrington writes
This person seems to have been repeatedly spamming a number of
newsgroups asking the same question.
- posted
18 years ago
wotfer when u can buy xp fo £50ish???
- posted
18 years ago
Could be a question of hardware or software compatability - until my PC
undergoes a major overhaul, I'm stuck with Windows 98 SE (yuck!) as XP flatly
refuses to install. :o(
-- ***
-- ***
formatting link
***
Updating regularly throughout 2004
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin.co.uk)- posted
18 years ago
Oddly, last time I checked, you could still buy 98SE - at a higher price
than XP Home!
- posted
18 years ago
"Rich Mackin" wrote
Try W2K - more stable than W98SE and not so fussy as XP.
John.
Try W2K - more stable than W98SE and not so fussy as XP.
John.
- posted
18 years ago
I gave Win2K a bash but it couldn't get to grips with me having 384Mb RAM -
the installer died a blue screen death unless I downgraded to 256Mb. Now I'm
up to 512Mb I might give it another try, if I can find the CD.
-- ***
-- ***
formatting link
***
Updating regularly throughout 2004
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin.co.uk)- posted
18 years ago
"Rich Mackin" wrote
Now that's ironical, because I was told that W98 was never designed to handle more than 256MB of RAM. Mine would, but it slowed the machines reaction time down significantly, so I compromised with 256, which is what I'm running now with W2K.
I've also heard it suggested that if you're running more than one bank of SDRAM that both (or all) should be the same size, so that 2 x 64, 2 x 128 or 2 x 256 is acceptable, but odd combinations are to be avoided.
John.
Now that's ironical, because I was told that W98 was never designed to handle more than 256MB of RAM. Mine would, but it slowed the machines reaction time down significantly, so I compromised with 256, which is what I'm running now with W2K.
I've also heard it suggested that if you're running more than one bank of SDRAM that both (or all) should be the same size, so that 2 x 64, 2 x 128 or 2 x 256 is acceptable, but odd combinations are to be avoided.
John.
- posted
18 years ago
XP has been (touchwood) fine with 768Mb for me - I'd upgrade it to 1Gb, but
there's little point with the MoBo being somewhat out of date. It's going to
be quite an expensive upgrade when I finally get round to it I think (Or
Football Manager 2005 appears ;-) )
- posted
18 years ago
as a matter of interest i tried installing win2k on to an old tandon amd k6
machine. it apparently installed fine but some pci devices weren't
recognised (mc said new hardware but wouldn't install even when i fed it
drivers) and usb didn't work, again said new device but wouldn't say what it
was.
ms win2000 hcl doesn't mention tandons so i'll take it back to win 98 and see what happens.
ms win2000 hcl doesn't mention tandons so i'll take it back to win 98 and see what happens.
- posted
18 years ago
i don't think that's a ms issue rather hardware, always buy good matching
memory
- posted
18 years ago
Win98SE maximum memory is 512MB - if you have more in your PC, then you have
to change some file settings so that Win98SE thinks it only has 512MB!
Win2000 and WinXP will use whatever you can throw at them.
Ian J.
Ian J.
- posted
18 years ago
The RAM limit for Win98 is 512Mb. Windows 2000 needs a minimum of 128Mb, XP
an ideal minimum of 256Mb. ( I run a PIII/866 & P4 2.8 with 512Mb RAM for
XP)
To get Win2k working more reliably on older PCs, disable ACPI in the BIOS.
Alan
> as a matter of interest i tried installing win2k on to an old tandon amd k6 > machine. it apparently installed fine but some pci devices weren't > recognised (mc said new hardware but wouldn't install even when i fed it > drivers) and usb didn't work, again said new device but wouldn't say what it > was. > > ms win2000 hcl doesn't mention tandons so i'll take it back to win 98 and > see what happens. > >
> > "Rich Mackin" wrote > > > > > Could be a question of hardware or software compatability - until my PC > > > undergoes a major overhaul, I'm stuck with Windows 98 SE (yuck!) as XP > > flatly > > > refuses to install. :o( > > > > Try W2K - more stable than W98SE and not so fussy as XP. > > > > John. > > > > > > > > >
To get Win2k working more reliably on older PCs, disable ACPI in the BIOS.
Alan
> as a matter of interest i tried installing win2k on to an old tandon amd k6 > machine. it apparently installed fine but some pci devices weren't > recognised (mc said new hardware but wouldn't install even when i fed it > drivers) and usb didn't work, again said new device but wouldn't say what it > was. > > ms win2000 hcl doesn't mention tandons so i'll take it back to win 98 and > see what happens. > >
> > "Rich Mackin" wrote > > > > > Could be a question of hardware or software compatability - until my PC > > > undergoes a major overhaul, I'm stuck with Windows 98 SE (yuck!) as XP > > flatly > > > refuses to install. :o( > > > > Try W2K - more stable than W98SE and not so fussy as XP. > > > > John. > > > > > > > > >
- posted
18 years ago
Yet another reason to load up Linux :))
Ken.
Ken.
- posted
18 years ago
I gave 2K another bash tonight, using an old spare hard drive to test it - it
seems happy with 512Mb RAM (2 x 256) but there's a catch.... the installer
copies the files, loads up the various hive files, then throws up a stop
error on "saving configuration" The error gives no useful information, just a
few 0x00000000s :-|
-- ***
-- ***
formatting link
***
Updating regularly throughout 2004
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin.co.uk)- posted
18 years ago
Possibilities:
Memory - corruption to the modules
Overly aggressive timings on the motherboard
Hard drive having corrupt clusters
ISA/PCI cards installed that are not on the HCL (hardware compatibility
list). There maybe drivers for them in W2K, but they won't be guaranteed to
work.
Ian J.
Ian J.
- posted
18 years ago
Unfortunately, tho Linux is more geek friendly and allows a great deal of
customisation - way beyond anything MS produces, it is a b****er when it
comes to power users. Geeks learn all about it, basic users only enough to
do the simplest of things. Power users want to be able to adjust the OS in a
straightforward way, not via tonnes of command line entries.
When Linux gets a unified, fully working GUI that can be used to adjust everything in the OS, I'll consider it again.
Ian J.
When Linux gets a unified, fully working GUI that can be used to adjust everything in the OS, I'll consider it again.
Ian J.
- posted
18 years ago
As far as I can determine, the memory seems to be fine.
I did a test install once before and it worked okay, and I generally leave board settings well alone.
HDD was fully tested with no troubles.
The PCI cards could be an issue - I once did a test install before installing a network card and it worked okay then - I'll give it a try later on with that card removed. Thanks for the tip!
-- ***
I did a test install once before and it worked okay, and I generally leave board settings well alone.
HDD was fully tested with no troubles.
The PCI cards could be an issue - I once did a test install before installing a network card and it worked okay then - I'll give it a try later on with that card removed. Thanks for the tip!
-- ***
formatting link
***
Updating regularly throughout 2004
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin.co.uk)- posted
18 years ago
If the NIC isn't recognised properly by W2K, that can cause trouble. This
can happen particularly with no-name brand cards where W2K tries to guess
the make and installs the wrong driver at installation of the OS.
Ian J.
Ian J.
- posted
18 years ago
The pre-installer did warn me that the network card was unsupported, though
the driver floppy has W2K drivers - I should be ok removing the NIC,
installing 2K, then refitting the NIC and installing appropriate drivers?
-- ***
-- ***
formatting link
***
Updating regularly throughout 2004
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin.co.uk)