29 Jan
2016
29 Jan
'16
9:10 p.m.
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Thanks for the tip - I wish I'd known about that 15 years ago!
From: "Jerome H. Fine" <jhfinedp3k at compsys.to>
Then I am really confused. I have two older systems that
are able to run 64-bit Windows 7, an E8400 and a Q9550.
Both take SATA drives which are still available. The mother
I can also still boot from both system using an old DOS 3.5"
floppy media and run Ghost 7.0 with these old SATA drives,
but as far as I can understand, using the device drivers on the
floppy drive.
I believe that Win98 tries to use its own drivers for disk, but if it can't
find any that work it just uses the ones built into the BIOS. Performance
suffers, because all disk I/O becomes blocking, but it still works. With a
modern disk with built-in cache, one probably wouldn't even notice the
difference (except for the floppy).
Win-98 SE ...
it would have been nice if it recognized USB storage
devices natively.
There is that package you can add (my copy is in a self-extracting
archive,
called "nusb23e.exe") that recognizes USB drives, etc. I run a number of
USB
devices (memory sticks, mice, etc) on my 98SE's and they all work fine. mark at markesystems.com wrote:
QUESTION: Is it even possible to run Win98SE on
a current
Intel I7 CPU with SATA hard disk drives? I realize that it might
Almost certainly not, at least practically. Even if you can get it to
boot and install, it will have no idea how to handle any of the modern Is it likely that either of these two systems be able
to run
Win98SE with the SATA hard drives, in one case 500 GB
each and the other system has 1 TB drives. In that case, it
I would expect that you could successfully boot and install Win98, although
you couldn't use all the drive in one volume (FAT32 is good for a little
over 100 gig); I've never tried partitioning up a terabyte drive and running
Win98 on a appropriately-sized partition, but it seems like it might work
OK. As above, the BIOS will take care of the fact that Win98 never heard of
SATA, and also abstract the USB keyboard and I think the mouse to look like
AT-type devices.
As I mentioned, though, it won't know about the video adapter, so that will
run in VGA 640x480 16-color mode; the sound card won't be available either,
nor the network interface. VirtualBox simulates all nice period-style
hardware for those things.
As I mentioned, the only two applications I would run
would
be the DOS variant of Ersatz-11 and Netscape 7.2 for e-mail
and newsgroups.
I suspect that both of those would run on Windows XP, and VirtualBox handles
that extremely well.
From: Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com>
I didn't mention that I've got 98SE running on
an 820 chipset
(RIMM/RDRAM is silly cheap now) with a Tuallie 1.4GHz in a Powerleap
slocket. It doesn't much agree with the Crystal CS4622 audio, but
perhaps that's just a matter of finding the right driver.
As I predicted... :-)
> Windows 98 was supposed to support a maximum of
2GB of memory, however
> it has a bug in the Vcache driver which causes problems unless you limit
Exactly what I've done with 440GX system. Using a
different XMS driver,
I keep a 1GB RAMdisk there.
But it runs quite nicely in just 64 or 128 meg, which was much more typical
of a machine of that period.
On faster, more modern systems, I use VirtualBox.
Just not worth the
extra trouble finding drivers--but I suspect 98SE will run on P4 systems
Yup, that's what seems to work best for me.
From: "js at cimmeri.com" <js at cimmeri.com>
The one thing I'm not seeing mentioned
in re VirtualBox is that what if you
have a legacy Win 98SE system with
hardware in it, like a GPIB card or
sound card? Or if you have software
that talks to hardware via serial or
parallel ports eg. eprom burners, Zector
ZVG vector graphic driver for MAME, etc.
Yup, that's true. VirtualBox will provide one or two com ports (optionally
mapped to the real host ports, or just pipes to other virtual machines), but
it doesn't support the parallel port. And as you've pointed out, any
specialized hardware won't work at all (because the backplane doesn't really
exist).
The other hassle is having to
essentially rebuild an Win98 (or any
other) machine from scratch in order to
try to replicate an existing setup. I
Also true...
From: Josh Dersch <derschjo at gmail.com>
everything else, you're SOL. I could see it being
possible to modify
VirtualBox to support parallel port forwarding or other exotic hardware
Wow! I guess it is open source, but that would be quite a bit of work, I
expect. If you do it, let me know - I've got an old Needham's PROM
programmer that would be nice to have working again.
From: John Foust <jfoust at threedee.com>
No one has mentioned the Windows Virtual PC, a
Microsoft product,
that lets you run Windows XP apps in a virtual environment under
Windows 7 Pro, letting XP apps run in their natural window on
the 7 desktop, or you can run the virtual XP machine desktop
in its own window.
I used an earlier version of Virtual PC on XP, and found that it worked
fairly well, although it was very resource intensive. So many applications
failed to run correctly on Win7 that Microsoft felt compelled to make a very
tightly integrated version for that operating system (Pro or greater only);
it was pretty neat how tightly integrated it was. That's how I ran
QuickBooks and a couple of other recalcitrant programs, but it wasn't a
panacea. In particular, applications that had several programs running
simultaneously, especially if they communicated via DDE (DDEML) were still
broken, and the tight integration was always a little scary to me. (If I
fired up a "stand-alone" XP machine, it would always want to log off or shut
down the one that had been running some other application, and because of
the Draconian security, I was never sure that I'd be able to get it back...)
It will also run Windows 98, with a few gotchas:
This is what I did with the earlier Virtual PC on top of XP, and it worked
fairly well. Like VirtualBox, it's free, but I find that VirtualBox tries
to do less integration "magic", and therefore feels like a more stable and
clearly delineated product.
I've seen no mention of Virtual PC on Win8 / 8.1 / 10 - does it still exist,
and is that "XP-mode" feature still available?
~~
Mark Moulding