Problem with new P4 3.06 & win98se installation

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

X-No-Archive: yes

Just upgraded my processor from a P4 1.7 -> P4 3.06ghz.

The problem is Windows 98 SE always locks up at the same point at the start.

I established that the system is stable by putting windows XP on an external
hard drive and running PRIME95 & MEMTEST. Both ran fine for hours with 0
errors.

My board is ABIT TH7IIRAID and although it doesnt offically support the 533
FSB,
I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.

The windows98 SE can boot fine into safe mode but when ever I go into normal
mode
the lock up always happens at start up.

There are no conflicts in the device manager.. and I even went so far as to
put a fresh install
of 98se on another hard disk and it does it on that as well. Ive removed all
PCI cards and it
still locked up... the only thing that works is putting the P4 1.7 back in.

May be win98se doesnt like P4 3.06ghz or it sees the HT feature and crashes
???

Its driving me nuts Ive been at this for 3 days now.

BTW: I looked into something regarding an "ndis.vxd" bug but I think this
bug is only on
win98 and not win98se - can anyone confirm its fixed on 98SE.

Anyway shed any light onto what I can do ??
51 answers Last reply
More about problem win98se installation
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:00:03 +0100, "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@hushmail.com>
    wrote:

    >X-No-Archive: yes
    >
    >Just upgraded my processor from a P4 1.7 -> P4 3.06ghz.
    >
    >The problem is Windows 98 SE always locks up at the same point at the start.
    >
    >I established that the system is stable by putting windows XP on an external
    >hard drive and running PRIME95 & MEMTEST. Both ran fine for hours with 0
    >errors.
    >
    >My board is ABIT TH7IIRAID and although it doesnt offically support the 533
    >FSB,
    >I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.
    >
    >The windows98 SE can boot fine into safe mode but when ever I go into normal
    >mode
    >the lock up always happens at start up.
    >
    >There are no conflicts in the device manager.. and I even went so far as to
    >put a fresh install
    >of 98se on another hard disk and it does it on that as well. Ive removed all
    >PCI cards and it
    >still locked up... the only thing that works is putting the P4 1.7 back in.
    >
    >May be win98se doesnt like P4 3.06ghz or it sees the HT feature and crashes
    >???
    >
    >Its driving me nuts Ive been at this for 3 days now.
    >
    >BTW: I looked into something regarding an "ndis.vxd" bug but I think this
    >bug is only on
    >win98 and not win98se - can anyone confirm its fixed on 98SE.
    >
    >Anyway shed any light onto what I can do ??


    How much main memory do you have installed on this system?
    More than 512MB, perhaps?

    /daytripper (wait for it ;-)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:00:03 +0100, "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@hushmail.com>
    wrote:

    >X-No-Archive: yes
    >
    >Just upgraded my processor from a P4 1.7 -> P4 3.06ghz.
    >
    >The problem is Windows 98 SE always locks up at the same point at the start.


    EXACTLY when does it lock up? Precision here might be critical.
    Does it make it to the desktop?
    Have you tried creating a bootlog (F8 menu selection after the POST
    screen).


    >I established that the system is stable by putting windows XP on an external
    >hard drive and running PRIME95 & MEMTEST. Both ran fine for hours with 0
    >errors.


    >My board is ABIT TH7IIRAID and although it doesnt offically support the 533
    >FSB,
    >I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.

    .... so it's overclocked. First thing to do is obvious enough,
    UN-overclock it. Reduce the FSB speed to spec for the motherboard, that
    is, 100MHz, and see if it still crashes. Nevermind that the CPU will be
    underclocked for the moment, we need to establish whether the FSB o'c is
    an issue. Performance may be relatively poor with the underclocked memory
    bus anyway, you might consider a newer motherboard & memory.

    >The windows98 SE can boot fine into safe mode but when ever I go into normal
    >mode
    >the lock up always happens at start up.

    You can also use the Win98SE boot menu to selectively load certain
    drivers, or Device Manager to temporarily disable some devices, and/or
    pull cards out temporarily.


    >There are no conflicts in the device manager.. and I even went so far as to
    >put a fresh install
    >of 98se on another hard disk and it does it on that as well. Ive removed all
    >PCI cards and it
    >still locked up... the only thing that works is putting the P4 1.7 back in.

    >May be win98se doesnt like P4 3.06ghz or it sees the HT feature and crashes
    >???

    Never heard of that happening before, seems unlikely.

    >Its driving me nuts Ive been at this for 3 days now.
    >
    >BTW: I looked into something regarding an "ndis.vxd" bug but I think this
    >bug is only on
    >win98 and not win98se - can anyone confirm its fixed on 98SE.

    Well there's a KB article and patch for SE but in my experience that
    doesn't generally lock a system on boot, but if it did that (as well as
    many problems) should show up in the bootlog.
    http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=243199
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    You know, of course, that Win 98SE, cannot use more than 512MB of RAM or the
    systems freezes/crashes.

    --
    DaveW


    "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@hushmail.com> wrote in message
    news:c66jsq$82rod$1@ID-9141.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > X-No-Archive: yes
    >
    > Just upgraded my processor from a P4 1.7 -> P4 3.06ghz.
    >
    > The problem is Windows 98 SE always locks up at the same point at the
    start.
    >
    > I established that the system is stable by putting windows XP on an
    external
    > hard drive and running PRIME95 & MEMTEST. Both ran fine for hours with 0
    > errors.
    >
    > My board is ABIT TH7IIRAID and although it doesnt offically support the
    533
    > FSB,
    > I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.
    >
    > The windows98 SE can boot fine into safe mode but when ever I go into
    normal
    > mode
    > the lock up always happens at start up.
    >
    > There are no conflicts in the device manager.. and I even went so far as
    to
    > put a fresh install
    > of 98se on another hard disk and it does it on that as well. Ive removed
    all
    > PCI cards and it
    > still locked up... the only thing that works is putting the P4 1.7 back
    in.
    >
    > May be win98se doesnt like P4 3.06ghz or it sees the HT feature and
    crashes
    > ???
    >
    > Its driving me nuts Ive been at this for 3 days now.
    >
    > BTW: I looked into something regarding an "ndis.vxd" bug but I think this
    > bug is only on
    > win98 and not win98se - can anyone confirm its fixed on 98SE.
    >
    > Anyway shed any light onto what I can do ??
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    That is incorrect. 9X only requires an entry in the vcache section of
    system.ini to limit vcache to no more than 512.

    "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message news:NTChc.56$_L6.6422@attbi_s53...
    > You know, of course, that Win 98SE, cannot use more than 512MB of RAM or
    the
    > systems freezes/crashes.
    >
    > --
    > DaveW
    >
    >
    >
    > "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@hushmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:c66jsq$82rod$1@ID-9141.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > X-No-Archive: yes
    > >
    > > Just upgraded my processor from a P4 1.7 -> P4 3.06ghz.
    > >
    > > The problem is Windows 98 SE always locks up at the same point at the
    > start.
    > >
    > > I established that the system is stable by putting windows XP on an
    > external
    > > hard drive and running PRIME95 & MEMTEST. Both ran fine for hours with 0
    > > errors.
    > >
    > > My board is ABIT TH7IIRAID and although it doesnt offically support the
    > 533
    > > FSB,
    > > I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.
    > >
    > > The windows98 SE can boot fine into safe mode but when ever I go into
    > normal
    > > mode
    > > the lock up always happens at start up.
    > >
    > > There are no conflicts in the device manager.. and I even went so far as
    > to
    > > put a fresh install
    > > of 98se on another hard disk and it does it on that as well. Ive removed
    > all
    > > PCI cards and it
    > > still locked up... the only thing that works is putting the P4 1.7 back
    > in.
    > >
    > > May be win98se doesnt like P4 3.06ghz or it sees the HT feature and
    > crashes
    > > ???
    > >
    > > Its driving me nuts Ive been at this for 3 days now.
    > >
    > > BTW: I looked into something regarding an "ndis.vxd" bug but I think
    this
    > > bug is only on
    > > win98 and not win98se - can anyone confirm its fixed on 98SE.
    > >
    > > Anyway shed any light onto what I can do ??
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    DaveW wrote:

    > You know, of course, that Win 98SE, cannot use more than 512MB of RAM or the
    > systems freezes/crashes.
    >

    Well, no. You limit the vcache size in system.ini and then it's fine.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    X-No-Archive: yes

    > >
    > >Anyway shed any light onto what I can do ??
    >
    >
    > How much main memory do you have installed on this system?
    > More than 512MB, perhaps?
    >

    No, 512MB.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    And how do you make this entry during Win9x installation?

    "Pen" <pennospam34us@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:XO6dnbJjdcsImxrdRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
    > That is incorrect. 9X only requires an entry in the vcache section of
    > system.ini to limit vcache to no more than 512.
    >
    > "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
    news:NTChc.56$_L6.6422@attbi_s53...
    > > You know, of course, that Win 98SE, cannot use more than 512MB of RAM or
    > the
    > > systems freezes/crashes.
    > >
    > > --
    > > DaveW
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@hushmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:c66jsq$82rod$1@ID-9141.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > > X-No-Archive: yes
    > > >
    > > > Just upgraded my processor from a P4 1.7 -> P4 3.06ghz.
    > > >
    > > > The problem is Windows 98 SE always locks up at the same point at the
    > > start.
    > > >
    > > > I established that the system is stable by putting windows XP on an
    > > external
    > > > hard drive and running PRIME95 & MEMTEST. Both ran fine for hours with
    0
    > > > errors.
    > > >
    > > > My board is ABIT TH7IIRAID and although it doesnt offically support
    the
    > > 533
    > > > FSB,
    > > > I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.
    > > >
    > > > The windows98 SE can boot fine into safe mode but when ever I go into
    > > normal
    > > > mode
    > > > the lock up always happens at start up.
    > > >
    > > > There are no conflicts in the device manager.. and I even went so far
    as
    > > to
    > > > put a fresh install
    > > > of 98se on another hard disk and it does it on that as well. Ive
    removed
    > > all
    > > > PCI cards and it
    > > > still locked up... the only thing that works is putting the P4 1.7
    back
    > > in.
    > > >
    > > > May be win98se doesnt like P4 3.06ghz or it sees the HT feature and
    > > crashes
    > > > ???
    > > >
    > > > Its driving me nuts Ive been at this for 3 days now.
    > > >
    > > > BTW: I looked into something regarding an "ndis.vxd" bug but I think
    > this
    > > > bug is only on
    > > > win98 and not win98se - can anyone confirm its fixed on 98SE.
    > > >
    > > > Anyway shed any light onto what I can do ??
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q253912#appliesto

    "Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in message
    news:E3Ehc.187272$Pk3.149210@pd7tw1no...
    > And how do you make this entry during Win9x installation?
    >
    > "Pen" <pennospam34us@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:XO6dnbJjdcsImxrdRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
    > > That is incorrect. 9X only requires an entry in the vcache section of
    > > system.ini to limit vcache to no more than 512.
    > >
    > > "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
    > news:NTChc.56$_L6.6422@attbi_s53...
    > > > You know, of course, that Win 98SE, cannot use more than 512MB of RAM
    or
    > > the
    > > > systems freezes/crashes.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > DaveW
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@hushmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:c66jsq$82rod$1@ID-9141.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > > > X-No-Archive: yes
    > > > >
    > > > > Just upgraded my processor from a P4 1.7 -> P4 3.06ghz.
    > > > >
    > > > > The problem is Windows 98 SE always locks up at the same point at
    the
    > > > start.
    > > > >
    > > > > I established that the system is stable by putting windows XP on an
    > > > external
    > > > > hard drive and running PRIME95 & MEMTEST. Both ran fine for hours
    with
    > 0
    > > > > errors.
    > > > >
    > > > > My board is ABIT TH7IIRAID and although it doesnt offically support
    > the
    > > > 533
    > > > > FSB,
    > > > > I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.
    > > > >
    > > > > The windows98 SE can boot fine into safe mode but when ever I go
    into
    > > > normal
    > > > > mode
    > > > > the lock up always happens at start up.
    > > > >
    > > > > There are no conflicts in the device manager.. and I even went so
    far
    > as
    > > > to
    > > > > put a fresh install
    > > > > of 98se on another hard disk and it does it on that as well. Ive
    > removed
    > > > all
    > > > > PCI cards and it
    > > > > still locked up... the only thing that works is putting the P4 1.7
    > back
    > > > in.
    > > > >
    > > > > May be win98se doesnt like P4 3.06ghz or it sees the HT feature and
    > > > crashes
    > > > > ???
    > > > >
    > > > > Its driving me nuts Ive been at this for 3 days now.
    > > > >
    > > > > BTW: I looked into something regarding an "ndis.vxd" bug but I think
    > > this
    > > > > bug is only on
    > > > > win98 and not win98se - can anyone confirm its fixed on 98SE.
    > > > >
    > > > > Anyway shed any light onto what I can do ??
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    127.0.0.1 wrote:
    > Just upgraded my processor from a P4 1.7 -> P4 3.06ghz.
    >
    > The problem is Windows 98 SE always locks up at the same point at the
    > start.
    >
    > I established that the system is stable by putting windows XP on an
    > external hard drive and running PRIME95 & MEMTEST. Both ran fine for
    > hours with 0 errors.
    >
    > My board is ABIT TH7IIRAID and although it doesnt offically support
    > the 533 FSB,
    > I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.
    >
    > The windows98 SE can boot fine into safe mode but when ever I go into
    > normal mode
    > the lock up always happens at start up.

    98SE and earlier have issues with CPUs over ~2.1GHz due to overflow
    problems. See
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312108
    I've had a friend who tried to get the patch out of MS without paying for
    support, but it seems to be impossible to do. Fortunately, someone who HAS
    got it out of them has been kind enough to post it on the web:
    http://www.sjordan.com/ndis_fix.html

    [...]

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Michael Brown wrote:

    > 127.0.0.1 wrote:
    >
    >>Just upgraded my processor from a P4 1.7 -> P4 3.06ghz.
    >>
    >>The problem is Windows 98 SE always locks up at the same point at the
    >>start.
    >>
    >>I established that the system is stable by putting windows XP on an
    >>external hard drive and running PRIME95 & MEMTEST. Both ran fine for
    >>hours with 0 errors.
    >>
    >>My board is ABIT TH7IIRAID and although it doesnt offically support
    >>the 533 FSB,
    >>I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.
    >>
    >>The windows98 SE can boot fine into safe mode but when ever I go into
    >>normal mode
    >>the lock up always happens at start up.
    >
    >
    > 98SE and earlier have issues with CPUs over ~2.1GHz due to overflow
    > problems. See
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312108
    > I've had a friend who tried to get the patch out of MS without paying for
    > support, but it seems to be impossible to do. Fortunately, someone who HAS
    > got it out of them has been kind enough to post it on the web:
    > http://www.sjordan.com/ndis_fix.html

    I got "access forbidden" on that server.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Hi,


    Don't quite agree on this one, I have a dual boot system and although I
    mainly use win 2k, it also has win 98 installed, and has more than 512MB
    of RAM, no problems whatsover not even during installation ...

    DaveW wrote:
    > You know, of course, that Win 98SE, cannot use more than 512MB of RAM or the
    > systems freezes/crashes.
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:
    > Michael Brown wrote:
    >
    [...]
    >> 98SE and earlier have issues with CPUs over ~2.1GHz due to overflow
    >> problems. See
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312108
    >> I've had a friend who tried to get the patch out of MS without
    >> paying for support, but it seems to be impossible to do.
    >> Fortunately, someone who HAS got it out of them has been kind enough
    >> to post it on the web: http://www.sjordan.com/ndis_fix.html
    >
    > I got "access forbidden" on that server.

    Wierd ... rechecked just now and it works fine. Another place to try is
    http://home.planet.nl/~dorp0043/2002.htm#fix

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Michael Brown wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >>Michael Brown wrote:
    >>
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >>>98SE and earlier have issues with CPUs over ~2.1GHz due to overflow
    >>>problems. See
    >>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312108
    >>>I've had a friend who tried to get the patch out of MS without
    >>>paying for support, but it seems to be impossible to do.
    >>>Fortunately, someone who HAS got it out of them has been kind enough
    >>>to post it on the web: http://www.sjordan.com/ndis_fix.html
    >>
    >>I got "access forbidden" on that server.
    >
    >
    > Wierd ... rechecked just now and it works fine.

    Could be a domain restriction because it's definitely coming from his server.

    Forbidden
    You don't have permission to access /ndis_fix.html on this server.

    Apache/1.3.29 Server at www.sjordan.com Port 80

    I also tried just http://www.sjordan.com/ and got the same thing.

    > Another place to try is
    > http://home.planet.nl/~dorp0043/2002.htm#fix

    Thanks. I was able to get it from there.


    > --
    > Michael Brown
    > www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    > Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Michael Brown wrote:
    [...]
    > 98SE and earlier have issues with CPUs over ~2.1GHz due to overflow
    > problems. See
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312108

    Note: It doesn't mention 98SE on this page, but it appears that SE suffers
    from the same problem:
    http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread/t-17663.html
    Looks like pulling NDIS.VXD from a WinME install (or other sources ;) ) will
    do the trick as well.

    [...]
    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:19:30 +1200, "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below>
    wrote:

    >Michael Brown wrote:
    >[...]
    >> 98SE and earlier have issues with CPUs over ~2.1GHz due to overflow
    >> problems. See
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312108
    >
    >Note: It doesn't mention 98SE on this page, but it appears that SE suffers
    >from the same problem:
    >http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread/t-17663.html
    >Looks like pulling NDIS.VXD from a WinME install (or other sources ;) ) will
    >do the trick as well.
    >
    >[...]

    The MS KB article specifically mentions the NDIS.VXD file for the patch is
    to be v 4.10.2000 or later version.

    Win98SE (at least this particular original Win98SE CD I have here) has
    NDIS.VXD v4.10.2222, which setup extracts from "NET9.CAB". It is running
    on a system with a > 2.1GHz CPU without this issue being apparent.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:19:30 +1200, "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Michael Brown wrote:
    >>[...]
    >>
    >>>98SE and earlier have issues with CPUs over ~2.1GHz due to overflow
    >>>problems. See
    >>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312108
    >>
    >>Note: It doesn't mention 98SE on this page, but it appears that SE suffers
    >
    >>from the same problem:
    >
    >>http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread/t-17663.html
    >>Looks like pulling NDIS.VXD from a WinME install (or other sources ;) ) will
    >>do the trick as well.
    >>
    >>[...]
    >
    >
    > The MS KB article specifically mentions the NDIS.VXD file for the patch is
    > to be v 4.10.2000 or later version.
    >
    > Win98SE (at least this particular original Win98SE CD I have here) has
    > NDIS.VXD v4.10.2222, which setup extracts from "NET9.CAB". It is running
    > on a system with a > 2.1GHz CPU without this issue being apparent.

    Yes. My Win98SE installations have that version too, although none are on
    machines that fast.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    X-No-Archive: yes

    Hi

    > EXACTLY when does it lock up? Precision here might be critical.
    > Does it make it to the desktop?
    > Have you tried creating a bootlog (F8 menu selection after the POST
    > screen).

    It locks up just as soon as everything is loaded up..and it makes it to the
    desktop.
    It even does this from a fresh install on another hard disk.. when you
    supposed to get control
    of the desktop thats when it will freeze.

    Its not something loading from any of the system files as I used msconfig
    and disabled everything and it
    still crashes.

    I just changed the CPU and it works again - so win98 doesnt like the new
    CPU.

    It could be the PNPDRV in windows or ACPI driver but im not sure.

    >
    > >My board is ABIT TH7IIRAID and although it doesnt offically support the
    533
    > >FSB,
    > >I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.
    >
    > ... so it's overclocked. First thing to do is obvious enough,
    > UN-overclock it. Reduce the FSB speed to spec for the motherboard, that
    > is, 100MHz, and see if it still crashes. Nevermind that the CPU will be
    > underclocked for the moment, we need to establish whether the FSB o'c is
    > an issue. Performance may be relatively poor with the underclocked memory
    > bus anyway, you might consider a newer motherboard & memory.
    >

    Not exactly overclocked its the correct speed for my CPU.

    But I tried it anyway with a normal 100mhz bus x 23 to underclock it to
    2.3ghz and no luck
    still crashes at the same place.

    The bootlog is useless :

    "Init = Final USER
    InitDone = Final USER
    Init = Installable Drivers
    InitDone = Installable Drivers
    Init = TSRQuery
    InitDone = TSRQuery
    [000375CA] Starting Unknown (HTREE\RESERVED\0)
    [000375CA] Started Unknown (HTREE\RESERVED\0)
    [000375CB] Enumerating Unknown (HTREE\RESERVED\0)
    [000375CB] Enumerated Unknown (HTREE\RESERVED\0)
    Terminate = User
    Terminate = Query Drivers
    EndTerminate = Query Drivers
    Terminate = Unload Network
    EndTerminate = Unload Network
    Terminate = Reset Display
    EndTerminate = Reset Display
    EndTerminate = User"

    I dont really want to buy another motherboard just yet but I might have to
    do to get it to work.

    I dont understand why it works in safe mode and why XP works.... its a hard
    problem to track down.

    Thanks for your help.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:36:23 +0100, "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@hushmail.com>
    wrote:

    >X-No-Archive: yes
    >
    >Hi
    >
    >> EXACTLY when does it lock up? Precision here might be critical.
    >> Does it make it to the desktop?
    >> Have you tried creating a bootlog (F8 menu selection after the POST
    >> screen).
    >
    >It locks up just as soon as everything is loaded up..and it makes it to the
    >desktop.
    >It even does this from a fresh install on another hard disk.. when you
    >supposed to get control
    >of the desktop thats when it will freeze.
    >
    >Its not something loading from any of the system files as I used msconfig
    >and disabled everything and it
    >still crashes.
    >
    >I just changed the CPU and it works again - so win98 doesnt like the new
    >CPU.
    >
    >It could be the PNPDRV in windows or ACPI driver but im not sure.

    Just changing the CPU shouldn't affect the PNPDRV or ACPI, AFAIK.
    Someone has mentioned the NDIS.VXD file, but otherwise I don't recall
    other issues relating to the CPU speed. I still feel it's possible that
    the motherboard is instable due to bus overclock.


    >> >FSB,
    >> >I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.
    >>
    >> ... so it's overclocked. First thing to do is obvious enough,
    >> UN-overclock it. Reduce the FSB speed to spec for the motherboard, that
    >> is, 100MHz, and see if it still crashes. Nevermind that the CPU will be
    >> underclocked for the moment, we need to establish whether the FSB o'c is
    >> an issue. Performance may be relatively poor with the underclocked memory
    >> bus anyway, you might consider a newer motherboard & memory.
    >>
    >
    >Not exactly overclocked its the correct speed for my CPU.

    The motherboard is overclocked. When overclocked it has potential for
    causing problems even if CPU isn't overclocked.

    >But I tried it anyway with a normal 100mhz bus x 23 to underclock it to
    >2.3ghz and no luck, still crashes at the same place.

    >I dont really want to buy another motherboard just yet but I might have to
    >do to get it to work.
    >
    >I dont understand why it works in safe mode and why XP works.... its a hard
    >problem to track down.
    >
    >Thanks for your help.

    Afraid I can't be much help, never had a P4 box fail at a clean Win98
    install but run other OS OK, and I'm out of ideas.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:03:03 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

    >On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:36:23 +0100, "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@hushmail.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>X-No-Archive: yes
    >>
    >>Hi
    >>
    >>> EXACTLY when does it lock up? Precision here might be critical.
    >>> Does it make it to the desktop?
    >>> Have you tried creating a bootlog (F8 menu selection after the POST
    >>> screen).
    >>
    >>It locks up just as soon as everything is loaded up..and it makes it to the
    >>desktop.
    >>It even does this from a fresh install on another hard disk.. when you
    >>supposed to get control
    >>of the desktop thats when it will freeze.
    >>
    >>Its not something loading from any of the system files as I used msconfig
    >>and disabled everything and it
    >>still crashes.
    >>
    >>I just changed the CPU and it works again - so win98 doesnt like the new
    >>CPU.
    >>
    >>It could be the PNPDRV in windows or ACPI driver but im not sure.
    >
    >Just changing the CPU shouldn't affect the PNPDRV or ACPI, AFAIK.
    >Someone has mentioned the NDIS.VXD file, but otherwise I don't recall
    >other issues relating to the CPU speed. I still feel it's possible that
    >the motherboard is instable due to bus overclock.
    >
    >
    >>> >FSB,
    >>> >I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.
    >>>
    >>> ... so it's overclocked. First thing to do is obvious enough,
    >>> UN-overclock it. Reduce the FSB speed to spec for the motherboard, that
    >>> is, 100MHz, and see if it still crashes. Nevermind that the CPU will be
    >>> underclocked for the moment, we need to establish whether the FSB o'c is
    >>> an issue. Performance may be relatively poor with the underclocked memory
    >>> bus anyway, you might consider a newer motherboard & memory.
    >>>
    >>
    >>Not exactly overclocked its the correct speed for my CPU.
    >
    >The motherboard is overclocked. When overclocked it has potential for
    >causing problems even if CPU isn't overclocked.
    >
    >>But I tried it anyway with a normal 100mhz bus x 23 to underclock it to
    >>2.3ghz and no luck, still crashes at the same place.
    >
    >>I dont really want to buy another motherboard just yet but I might have to
    >>do to get it to work.
    >>
    >>I dont understand why it works in safe mode and why XP works.... its a hard
    >>problem to track down.
    >>
    >>Thanks for your help.
    >
    >Afraid I can't be much help, never had a P4 box fail at a clean Win98
    >install but run other OS OK, and I'm out of ideas.

    He might try to update his BIOS...or try and isolate EXACTLY what it is that's freezing his system.
    It'd be a lil tedious, easier to just use WinXP, but he could do it. Just find out everything
    that's running and being loaded, subtract out everything that's running and loaded in safe mode
    (since it works in safe mode) and then check all the rest one by one. For starters, I'd look at the
    graphics card/driver. Throttle it back to 16 colors and no accelerated functions and see if that
    makes any sort of difference.

    --

    Onideus Mad Hatter
    mhm ¹ x ¹
    http://www.backwater-productions.net
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    kony wrote:
    > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:19:30 +1200, "Michael Brown"
    > <see@signature.below> wrote:
    >
    >> Michael Brown wrote:
    >> [...]
    >>> 98SE and earlier have issues with CPUs over ~2.1GHz due to overflow
    >>> problems. See
    >>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312108
    >>
    >> Note: It doesn't mention 98SE on this page, but it appears that SE
    >> suffers from the same problem:
    >> http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread/t-17663.html
    >> Looks like pulling NDIS.VXD from a WinME install (or other sources
    >> ;) ) will do the trick as well.
    >>
    >> [...]
    >
    > The MS KB article specifically mentions the NDIS.VXD file for the
    > patch is to be v 4.10.2000 or later version.
    >
    > Win98SE (at least this particular original Win98SE CD I have here) has
    > NDIS.VXD v4.10.2222, which setup extracts from "NET9.CAB". It is
    > running on a system with a > 2.1GHz CPU without this issue being
    > apparent.

    Hmm, should have checked my 98SE disks before posting :| My 98SE has the
    same version (2222) and it gave the NDIS error on boot when I was running my
    CPUs at 2.2GHz (though it's Prime95 stable at these speeds). Haven't tried
    it since dropping dropping down to 2GHz (allowed me to run at much lower
    voltages, and hence with less noise), though it might just be 98 not liking
    the dual-Barton setup :)

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    X-No-Archive: yes

    > >Afraid I can't be much help, never had a P4 box fail at a clean Win98
    > >install but run other OS OK, and I'm out of ideas.
    >
    > He might try to update his BIOS...or try and isolate EXACTLY what it is
    that's freezing his system.
    > It'd be a lil tedious, easier to just use WinXP, but he could do it. Just
    find out everything
    > that's running and being loaded, subtract out everything that's running
    and loaded in safe mode
    > (since it works in safe mode) and then check all the rest one by one. For
    starters, I'd look at the
    > graphics card/driver. Throttle it back to 16 colors and no accelerated
    functions and see if that
    > makes any sort of difference.
    >


    Think im going to have to give up on this problem.

    I just did a format C: and re-installed windows98se .. just when it finished
    everything and was about to run
    again it locked up at the same spot.. so im sure its a hardware problem.
    Damn P4 3ghz!!

    I dont think there is anything more I can try to get it to work.. I have the
    latest BIOS.

    Time to buy a new motherboard - anyone recommend one ?
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    127.0.0.1 wrote:

    > X-No-Archive: yes
    >
    >
    >>>Afraid I can't be much help, never had a P4 box fail at a clean Win98
    >>>install but run other OS OK, and I'm out of ideas.
    >>
    >>He might try to update his BIOS...or try and isolate EXACTLY what it is
    >
    > that's freezing his system.
    >
    >>It'd be a lil tedious, easier to just use WinXP, but he could do it. Just
    >
    > find out everything
    >
    >>that's running and being loaded, subtract out everything that's running
    >
    > and loaded in safe mode
    >
    >>(since it works in safe mode) and then check all the rest one by one. For
    >
    > starters, I'd look at the
    >
    >>graphics card/driver. Throttle it back to 16 colors and no accelerated
    >
    > functions and see if that
    >
    >>makes any sort of difference.
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > Think im going to have to give up on this problem.
    >
    > I just did a format C: and re-installed windows98se .. just when it finished
    > everything and was about to run
    > again it locked up at the same spot.. so im sure its a hardware problem.
    > Damn P4 3ghz!!
    >
    > I dont think there is anything more I can try to get it to work.. I have the
    > latest BIOS.
    >
    > Time to buy a new motherboard - anyone recommend one ?

    Out of curiosity, why are you so dead set on running Win98se, vs XP, that
    you'd go to the length of buying another motherboard?

    A few comments from other messages in the thread.

    You seem surprised that safe mode makes a difference. Safe mode disables
    all hardware specific drivers and backs down to generic ones. I.E. no
    display acceleration, no fancy chipset IDE drivers, etc. It's 'bare bones'
    functionality.

    That it fails when the 'fancy drivers' are being used suggests that some
    driver is not operating properly with the hardware. However, since WinXP
    appears to work that would suggest it isn't the hardware.

    The common 'difference' between the three seems to be the hardware specific
    drivers in Win98. It works without them and it works with WinXP drivers.

    Win98 is an older operating system. Where are you getting the drivers for
    the hardware that Windows98 can't know about because it didn't exist when
    windows98 was distributed? Are you 100% sure that you've installed all the
    correct drivers (e.g. chipset) for windows98?

    A lockup just as it goes to the desktop sounds like a display problem. That
    could be either the display drier itself or the chipset AGP port drivers.
    It could also be other drivers, such as the CPU/PCI bridge (AGP display
    commands come through the PCI bus), etc. I.E. Anything that is in the loop
    for the display.

    Another item of curiosity: Why a hyperthreading CPU on a motherboard that
    doesn't support hyperthreading?
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:28:24 +0100, "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@hushmail.com> wrote:

    >X-No-Archive: yes
    >
    >> >Afraid I can't be much help, never had a P4 box fail at a clean Win98
    >> >install but run other OS OK, and I'm out of ideas.
    >>
    >> He might try to update his BIOS...or try and isolate EXACTLY what it is
    >that's freezing his system.
    >> It'd be a lil tedious, easier to just use WinXP, but he could do it. Just
    >find out everything
    >> that's running and being loaded, subtract out everything that's running
    >and loaded in safe mode
    >> (since it works in safe mode) and then check all the rest one by one. For
    >starters, I'd look at the
    >> graphics card/driver. Throttle it back to 16 colors and no accelerated
    >functions and see if that
    >> makes any sort of difference.
    >>
    >
    >
    >Think im going to have to give up on this problem.
    >
    >I just did a format C: and re-installed windows98se .. just when it finished
    >everything and was about to run
    >again it locked up at the same spot.. so im sure its a hardware problem.
    >Damn P4 3ghz!!
    >
    >I dont think there is anything more I can try to get it to work.. I have the
    >latest BIOS.
    >
    >Time to buy a new motherboard - anyone recommend one ?

    You're going to buy a new motherboard eh? ...and you actually think that's gonna somehow fix yer
    lil Win98 problem?

    *shakes head*

    Why not just upgrade to WinXP? Sure it takes more effort to neuter the little bitch, but once you
    do you'll find it to be a LOT more stable. Not to mention all the other perks.

    --

    Onideus Mad Hatter
    mhm ¹ x ¹
    http://www.backwater-productions.net
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    >
    > I dont understand why it works in safe mode and why XP works.... its a
    hard
    > problem to track down.
    >
    > Thanks for your help.


    To me the answer seems fairly obvious ( although I am no expert).
    Safemode uses a minimal set of drivers
    So obviously your new processor will not work with some of your
    sysyems drivers.
    The only question which is drivers. I presume it is easy to find
    which one if you know what you are doing (I don't without
    trying).
    ( all you need to do is to selectively load the drivers?)
    XP works presumeably because it uses different drivers.
    As has been pointed out changing you mobo will make know
    difference as you know you mobo is fine as you have had
    it running in XP.
    >
    >
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:
    >
    .... snip ...
    >
    > Out of curiosity, why are you so dead set on running Win98se, vs
    > XP, that you'd go to the length of buying another motherboard?

    Maybe he wants convenient direct access to serial and parallel
    ports. Maybe he doesn't want to accede to the XP EULA, giving
    Bill et cie. unlimited snooping and editorial rights on his
    machine, not to mention the right to force him to upgrade at his
    expense and their desire.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    CBFalconer wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    > ... snip ...
    >
    >>Out of curiosity, why are you so dead set on running Win98se, vs
    >>XP, that you'd go to the length of buying another motherboard?
    >
    >
    > Maybe he wants convenient direct access to serial and parallel
    > ports. Maybe he doesn't want to accede to the XP EULA, giving
    > Bill et cie. unlimited snooping and editorial rights on his
    > machine, not to mention the right to force him to upgrade at his
    > expense and their desire.
    >

    Thank you for the editorial but I wasn't asking whether YOU liked Bill
    Gates; I was asking him why HE wanted to run Windows 98.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:48:18 -0500, David Maynard wrote:

    > Thank you for the editorial but I wasn't asking whether YOU liked Bill
    > Gates; I was asking him why HE wanted to run Windows 98.

    If you wanted to ask him personally, you could've sent an email... ;)

    --
    Lenroc
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Lenroc wrote:

    > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:48:18 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Thank you for the editorial but I wasn't asking whether YOU liked Bill
    >>Gates; I was asking him why HE wanted to run Windows 98.
    >
    >
    > If you wanted to ask him personally, you could've sent an email... ;)
    >

    That's one way. Another is to speak to him via the newsgroup.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:
    > Lenroc wrote:
    >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:48:18 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Thank you for the editorial but I wasn't asking whether YOU
    >>> liked Bill Gates; I was asking him why HE wanted to run
    >>> Windows 98.
    >>
    >> If you wanted to ask him personally, you could've sent an
    >> email... ;)
    >
    > That's one way. Another is to speak to him via the newsgroup.

    No it isn't. Personal mail should go via direct e-mail, wherever
    possible, and not pollute any newsgroup.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    CBFalconer wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >>Lenroc wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:48:18 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Thank you for the editorial but I wasn't asking whether YOU
    >>>>liked Bill Gates; I was asking him why HE wanted to run
    >>>>Windows 98.
    >>>
    >>>If you wanted to ask him personally, you could've sent an
    >>>email... ;)
    >>
    >>That's one way. Another is to speak to him via the newsgroup.
    >
    >
    > No it isn't.

    Yes, it is.


    > Personal mail should go via direct e-mail, wherever
    > possible, and not pollute any newsgroup.

    It is not 'pollution' to reply to someone, as I am doing with you, nor is
    it 'pollution' to ask someone a question.

    That is what newsgroups are for.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    X-No-Archive: yes

    >
    > Out of curiosity, why are you so dead set on running Win98se, vs XP, that
    > you'd go to the length of buying another motherboard?
    >

    I have all my programs and settings already set up on win 98.

    What can XP do that I need than Windows 98SE cant ? It offers
    me nothing apart from a prettier GUI. They are both as stable as each
    other and my XP machine crashes just as much as my win98 one.

    > A few comments from other messages in the thread.
    >
    > You seem surprised that safe mode makes a difference. Safe mode disables
    > all hardware specific drivers and backs down to generic ones. I.E. no
    > display acceleration, no fancy chipset IDE drivers, etc. It's 'bare bones'
    > functionality.
    >
    > That it fails when the 'fancy drivers' are being used suggests that some
    > driver is not operating properly with the hardware. However, since WinXP
    > appears to work that would suggest it isn't the hardware.
    >
    > The common 'difference' between the three seems to be the hardware
    specific
    > drivers in Win98. It works without them and it works with WinXP drivers.
    >
    > Win98 is an older operating system. Where are you getting the drivers for
    > the hardware that Windows98 can't know about because it didn't exist when
    > windows98 was distributed? Are you 100% sure that you've installed all the
    > correct drivers (e.g. chipset) for windows98?

    I never get the chance to install any drivers, it crashes when that stage
    comes up on a
    fresh install.

    >
    > A lockup just as it goes to the desktop sounds like a display problem.
    That
    > could be either the display drier itself or the chipset AGP port drivers.
    > It could also be other drivers, such as the CPU/PCI bridge (AGP display
    > commands come through the PCI bus), etc. I.E. Anything that is in the loop
    > for the display.
    >

    The graphics card is the only thing I cant eliminate from this problem
    because I dont
    have another spare one around.

    > Another item of curiosity: Why a hyperthreading CPU on a motherboard that
    > doesn't support hyperthreading?

    I needed to upgrade the CPU I managed to get cheap 3ghz - didnt specifically
    look
    for HT it just came extra with it.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    127.0.0.1 wrote:

    > X-No-Archive: yes
    >
    >
    >>Out of curiosity, why are you so dead set on running Win98se, vs XP, that
    >>you'd go to the length of buying another motherboard?
    >>
    >
    >
    > I have all my programs and settings already set up on win 98.

    If you did an upgrade those setting should remain, except for programs that
    might be incompatible with WinXP.

    Although, with all the talk of 'fresh installs' I'm a bit confused on how
    those settings are 'already set up'.

    > What can XP do that I need than Windows 98SE cant ? It offers
    > me nothing apart from a prettier GUI. They are both as stable as each
    > other and my XP machine crashes just as much as my win98 one.

    I'm not trying to 'sell' XP but I think your assessment of stability is
    incorrect. Win2K and XP are, in general, much more stable than the Win9x
    family so if your WinXP machine is crashing 'just as much' I'd suggest you
    have a different problem than stability of the O.S. For example, and I'm
    not saying this is necessarily the case with your 'other' machine, the
    'stability' of an O.S. can't 'fix' a hardware problem. "System" stability
    is a combination of things with the O.S. being only one of them.

    But, to the real issue, you have a CPU/motherboard combo that apparently
    works fine under WinXP but not Windows98. Regardless of your impression
    with the 'other' machine, it would seem clear that XP is 'more stable' with
    the 3 gig P4 than Windows98, at least without some 'fix' that has, so far,
    been elusive.

    Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying windows 98 is 'bad'. I've got 3 or 4
    machines still using win98se myself; mainly for compatibility with some
    hardware that WindowsXP doesn't support. I was just wondering why it is
    worth 'money', to buy another motherboard, just to keep Windows98 when you
    apparently have a workable solution already in hand: Windows XP.

    You might also want to consider that Windows 98 is becoming obsolete.
    You're a bit in luck because Microsoft extended secondary support till June
    2006 but it will become increasingly common for new software to not support
    it. Doesn't matter much, of course, if all you want to run on it is what
    you've already got but, for example, Office 2003 won't install on it and
    neither will Adobe Premier Pro, etc.


    >>A few comments from other messages in the thread.
    >>
    >>You seem surprised that safe mode makes a difference. Safe mode disables
    >>all hardware specific drivers and backs down to generic ones. I.E. no
    >>display acceleration, no fancy chipset IDE drivers, etc. It's 'bare bones'
    >>functionality.
    >>
    >>That it fails when the 'fancy drivers' are being used suggests that some
    >>driver is not operating properly with the hardware. However, since WinXP
    >>appears to work that would suggest it isn't the hardware.
    >>
    >>The common 'difference' between the three seems to be the hardware
    >
    > specific
    >
    >>drivers in Win98. It works without them and it works with WinXP drivers.
    >>
    >>Win98 is an older operating system. Where are you getting the drivers for
    >>the hardware that Windows98 can't know about because it didn't exist when
    >>windows98 was distributed? Are you 100% sure that you've installed all the
    >>correct drivers (e.g. chipset) for windows98?
    >
    >
    > I never get the chance to install any drivers, it crashes when that stage
    > comes up on a
    > fresh install.

    It doesn't ask for the driver disks for 'unknown' hardware it's detected
    during the install?


    >>A lockup just as it goes to the desktop sounds like a display problem.
    >
    > That
    >
    >>could be either the display drier itself or the chipset AGP port drivers.
    >>It could also be other drivers, such as the CPU/PCI bridge (AGP display
    >>commands come through the PCI bus), etc. I.E. Anything that is in the loop
    >>for the display.
    >>
    >
    >
    > The graphics card is the only thing I cant eliminate from this problem
    > because I dont
    > have another spare one around.

    Change it to the generic VGA driver in safe mode and then see if it will
    boot into normal mode with that one.

    Although, as I think back over the thread, you said windows98 WAS working
    on it with the old processor and that the only thing different is the 3 gig
    P4? I'd put that ndis fix in that kony found straight off. Just copy it
    into \windows\system\, overwriting the one that's there, in safe mode.

    >>Another item of curiosity: Why a hyperthreading CPU on a motherboard that
    >>doesn't support hyperthreading?
    >
    >
    > I needed to upgrade the CPU I managed to get cheap 3ghz - didnt specifically
    > look
    > for HT it just came extra with it.

    Ah. OK.

    Now THAT might be an inducement to get a new motherboard, to use the
    hyperthreading, but then you'd need to run XP for that too.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:37:05 +0100, "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@hushmail.com>
    wrote:


    >I never get the chance to install any drivers, it crashes when that stage
    >comes up on a
    >fresh install.

    Did you install that newest NDIS.VXD patch I linked?
    If for some reason it won't install from safe mode, you could just extract
    the NDIS.VXD file on (or copy it from) another system, like onto a floppy,
    then transfer it at dos prompt... should be copied into \windows\system\
    folder.

    >
    >>
    >> A lockup just as it goes to the desktop sounds like a display problem.
    >That
    >> could be either the display drier itself or the chipset AGP port drivers.
    >> It could also be other drivers, such as the CPU/PCI bridge (AGP display
    >> commands come through the PCI bus), etc. I.E. Anything that is in the loop
    >> for the display.
    >>
    >
    >The graphics card is the only thing I cant eliminate from this problem
    >because I dont
    >have another spare one around.

    Set it to standard VGA if you haven't already (can be done in safe mode)
    then it's removed from doubt.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:
    > CBFalconer wrote:
    >> David Maynard wrote:
    >>>Lenroc wrote:
    >>>> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:48:18 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Thank you for the editorial but I wasn't asking whether YOU
    >>>>> liked Bill Gates; I was asking him why HE wanted to run
    >>>>> Windows 98.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you wanted to ask him personally, you could've sent an
    >>>> email... ;)
    >>>
    >>> That's one way. Another is to speak to him via the newsgroup.
    >>
    >> No it isn't.
    >
    > Yes, it is.
    >
    >> Personal mail should go via direct e-mail, wherever
    >> possible, and not pollute any newsgroup.
    >
    > It is not 'pollution' to reply to someone, as I am doing with
    > you, nor is it 'pollution' to ask someone a question.
    >
    > That is what newsgroups are for.

    Topical discussions, including topicallity, are one thing. Note
    the word "personal" in the above. You started by implying that my
    theories as to the OPs reasons were unwelcome because your message
    was directed at one particular party. It was and is not; anything
    posted to a newsgroup is for public consumption.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    CBFalconer wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >>CBFalconer wrote:
    >>
    >>>David Maynard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Lenroc wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:48:18 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Thank you for the editorial but I wasn't asking whether YOU
    >>>>>>liked Bill Gates; I was asking him why HE wanted to run
    >>>>>>Windows 98.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>If you wanted to ask him personally, you could've sent an
    >>>>>email... ;)
    >>>>
    >>>>That's one way. Another is to speak to him via the newsgroup.
    >>>
    >>>No it isn't.
    >>
    >>Yes, it is.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Personal mail should go via direct e-mail, wherever
    >>>possible, and not pollute any newsgroup.
    >>
    >>It is not 'pollution' to reply to someone, as I am doing with
    >>you, nor is it 'pollution' to ask someone a question.
    >>
    >>That is what newsgroups are for.
    >
    >
    > Topical discussions, including topicallity, are one thing. Note
    > the word "personal" in the above. You started by implying that my
    > theories as to the OPs reasons were unwelcome because your message
    > was directed at one particular party. It was and is not; anything
    > posted to a newsgroup is for public consumption.

    I was quite clear in what I said: that your personal dislike for Microsoft
    wasn't relevant, nor on topic, just because you're looking for an
    opportunity to rant and figured my post was a chance to get another stab in.

    If you weren't so obsessed you'd have noticed he already HAS a WinXP system.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Howdy!

    "127.0.0.1" <127.0.0.1@hushmail.com> wrote in message
    news:c66jsq$82rod$1@ID-9141.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > X-No-Archive: yes
    >
    > Just upgraded my processor from a P4 1.7 -> P4 3.06ghz.
    >
    > The problem is Windows 98 SE always locks up at the same point at the
    start.

    Due to your processor being > approximately 2.4GHz ... past that,
    the timing loops in Win98 get to where they "divide by zero" causing it to
    lock up.

    >
    > I established that the system is stable by putting windows XP on an
    external
    > hard drive and running PRIME95 & MEMTEST. Both ran fine for hours with 0
    > errors.
    >
    > My board is ABIT TH7IIRAID and although it doesnt offically support the
    533
    > FSB,
    > I overclocked it to 133fsb x 23. I underclocked the RAM to 300.
    >
    > The windows98 SE can boot fine into safe mode but when ever I go into
    normal
    > mode
    > the lock up always happens at start up.
    >
    > There are no conflicts in the device manager.. and I even went so far as
    to
    > put a fresh install
    > of 98se on another hard disk and it does it on that as well. Ive removed
    all
    > PCI cards and it
    > still locked up... the only thing that works is putting the P4 1.7 back
    in.
    >
    > May be win98se doesnt like P4 3.06ghz or it sees the HT feature and
    crashes
    > ???

    Doesn't like the 3.06GHz.

    >
    > Its driving me nuts Ive been at this for 3 days now.
    >
    > BTW: I looked into something regarding an "ndis.vxd" bug but I think this
    > bug is only on
    > win98 and not win98se - can anyone confirm its fixed on 98SE.
    >
    > Anyway shed any light onto what I can do ??

    Put the 1.7 back in.

    Or dump 98SE.

    RwP
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    X-No-Archive: yes

    > >
    > > The graphics card is the only thing I cant eliminate from this problem
    > > because I dont
    > > have another spare one around.
    >
    > Change it to the generic VGA driver in safe mode and then see if it will
    > boot into normal mode with that one.
    >
    > Although, as I think back over the thread, you said windows98 WAS working
    > on it with the old processor and that the only thing different is the 3
    gig
    > P4? I'd put that ndis fix in that kony found straight off. Just copy it
    > into \windows\system\, overwriting the one that's there, in safe mode.
    >

    Its not an NDIS problem - I copied it a couple of times and it still did the
    same thing.

    What happens on a fresh install is -

    When everything is setup its going to boot into windows for the first time
    it will start detecting
    plug and play hardware. That is the point it will freeze.

    It doesn't crash on the screen where it asks you to login.

    As soon as I login it does its detection and crashes. Firstly it looks for a
    plug and play monitor and asks for the drivers but
    im fairly sure thats not whats crashing it - its something else as its
    crashed during various stages of the PnP detection.

    > Ah. OK.
    >
    > Now THAT might be an inducement to get a new motherboard, to use the
    > hyperthreading, but then you'd need to run XP for that too.

    Anyone else running WIN98SE on a processor with Hyper Threading (3.06Ghz
    + ) - and does
    it work (with HT disabled - I know the OS doesnt support it) ?
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    127.0.0.1 wrote:

    > X-No-Archive: yes
    >
    >
    >>>The graphics card is the only thing I cant eliminate from this problem
    >>>because I dont
    >>>have another spare one around.
    >>
    >>Change it to the generic VGA driver in safe mode and then see if it will
    >>boot into normal mode with that one.
    >>
    >>Although, as I think back over the thread, you said windows98 WAS working
    >>on it with the old processor and that the only thing different is the 3
    >
    > gig
    >
    >>P4? I'd put that ndis fix in that kony found straight off. Just copy it
    >>into \windows\system\, overwriting the one that's there, in safe mode.
    >>
    >
    >
    > Its not an NDIS problem - I copied it a couple of times and it still did the
    > same thing.
    >
    > What happens on a fresh install is -
    >
    > When everything is setup its going to boot into windows for the first time
    > it will start detecting
    > plug and play hardware. That is the point it will freeze.
    >
    > It doesn't crash on the screen where it asks you to login.
    >
    > As soon as I login it does its detection and crashes. Firstly it looks for a
    > plug and play monitor and asks for the drivers but
    > im fairly sure thats not whats crashing it - its something else as its
    > crashed during various stages of the PnP detection.
    >
    >
    >>Ah. OK.
    >>
    >>Now THAT might be an inducement to get a new motherboard, to use the
    >>hyperthreading, but then you'd need to run XP for that too.
    >
    >
    > Anyone else running WIN98SE on a processor with Hyper Threading (3.06Ghz
    > + ) - and does
    > it work (with HT disabled - I know the OS doesnt support it) ?
    >
    >

    Ok. I did some looking around, and it ain't easy to find folks trying to
    run Win98se on P4s that fast, but I did find a thread.

    http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48476

    Ok, so it isn't your board and it isn't even your chipset, but the dern
    thing works at 3.06 gig in windows98se.

    The things different from when your slower P4 worked are the speed of the
    new one, hyperthreading, that you're overclocking the motherboard to run
    it, and that you installed it (Don't laugh. What I mean is possible changes
    to BIOS settings.).

    Ok, that thread shows that the CPU speed alone shouldn't be a killer and it
    suggests that neither is the hyperthreading, but I wonder just what state
    it's in when the motherboard can neither enable nor disable it. Intel says
    it 'must' be disabled in BIOS for win98se but that could simply mean 'not
    enabled', if you see what I mean. I.E. If there is a setting it's either
    one or the other so 'not one' is 'the other'. But you have 'nothing'. Let's
    assume, for the moment, it defaults to the 'disabled' you need.

    Next is the overclock. Put it at 100Mhz till the dern thing works, ok? Just
    to get that possibility off the table. One it runs you can bump it back up
    and worry about 'fixed', or not, PCI/AGP dividers.

    Now to BIOS. I don't know what the settings used to be, or if they are the
    same, but it seems suspicious that it hangs on installing things that
    previously installed. What is "pnp O.S." set for? Reverse it (not pnp is
    usually best). Do you have APIC enabled? DISABLE it. Frankly, I'm hoping
    this is your problem because win9x (all of them) does NOT support APIC and
    that will royally hose it up as windows will be unable to assign the IRQ.

    Past that, do a general recheck of your BIOS settings to see if something
    is different from when it worked but, as I mentioned, I'm betting on the APIC.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    There's a lot of activity here and I'm not sure if someone else has already
    posted your solution but here it is...sorry if I'm duplicating someone
    else's post:

    Here's some cut and paste from Microsoft's site:
    SYMPTOMS
    When you are installing Windows 95 or Windows 98 on a computer that has a
    CPU that runs at 2.2 gigahertz (GHz) or faster, you may receive the
    following error message:

    While initializing device NDIS: Windows protection error
    CAUSE
    The timing calibration code in the Network Driver Interface Specification
    (NDIS) driver causes a divide by zero if the CPU runs at 2.2 GHz or faster.
    This problem does not occur with CPUs that run at 2.1 GHz or slower.


    Go to this link on Microsoft's tech site:
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312108

    Download the updated NDIS driver here:
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;243199

    or here: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;EN-US;CNTACTMS

    The update is only 217kb and I have it so let me know if you have problems
    downloading and I can send it to ya. After loading the update you should be
    good to load Win98.

    Baad Boy
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    ....I meant, you can load (Win98 SE) after the update. (Win98) has a fix but
    I could never find it--just a lot of sites claiming to have it for a sum of
    money.


    "Baad Boy" <Boybaad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:%hkic.36282$G_.7144@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
    > There's a lot of activity here and I'm not sure if someone else has
    already
    > posted your solution but here it is...sorry if I'm duplicating someone
    > else's post:
    >
    > Here's some cut and paste from Microsoft's site:
    > SYMPTOMS
    > When you are installing Windows 95 or Windows 98 on a computer that has a
    > CPU that runs at 2.2 gigahertz (GHz) or faster, you may receive the
    > following error message:
    >
    > While initializing device NDIS: Windows protection error
    > CAUSE
    > The timing calibration code in the Network Driver Interface Specification
    > (NDIS) driver causes a divide by zero if the CPU runs at 2.2 GHz or
    faster.
    > This problem does not occur with CPUs that run at 2.1 GHz or slower.
    >
    >
    > Go to this link on Microsoft's tech site:
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;312108
    >
    > Download the updated NDIS driver here:
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;243199
    >
    > or here: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;EN-US;CNTACTMS
    >
    > The update is only 217kb and I have it so let me know if you have problems
    > downloading and I can send it to ya. After loading the update you should
    be
    > good to load Win98.
    >
    > Baad Boy
    >
    >
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:34:13 GMT, "Baad Boy" <Boybaad@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >...I meant, you can load (Win98 SE) after the update. (Win98) has a fix but
    >I could never find it--just a lot of sites claiming to have it for a sum of
    >money.
    >

    Not sure exactly what you're referring to but I may have it, if anyeone
    wants it I'd need more info to ID it though, KB/Q # or filename, etc.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    I'm referring to the NDIS update. I have a 3.0C and had the same problems
    when I tried to load Win98. I downloaded the update 2 months or so ago but
    I use win2K now.


    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:djtj809v52ro256oglleeoph00r4mdohld@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:34:13 GMT, "Baad Boy" <Boybaad@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >...I meant, you can load (Win98 SE) after the update. (Win98) has a fix
    but
    > >I could never find it--just a lot of sites claiming to have it for a sum
    of
    > >money.
    > >
    >
    > Not sure exactly what you're referring to but I may have it, if anyeone
    > wants it I'd need more info to ID it though, KB/Q # or filename, etc.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Do you have the PCI/AGP buss locked? If you are setting the FSB to 133 and
    the AGP buss is not locked it could be over clocked and causing it to lock up.
    I have used 98 with a lot of CPU's over 2.2 and not had a problem at all,didnt
    need no patch to use it either. I am currently using a 2.8c overclocked to
    3.12 with 98 and dont have a problem,it is a dual boot system with 98 and XP.
    DOUG
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 05:38:40 GMT, "Baad Boy" <Boybaad@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >I'm referring to the NDIS update. I have a 3.0C and had the same problems
    >when I tried to load Win98. I downloaded the update 2 months or so ago but
    >I use win2K now.
    >

    There's more than one NDIS update, basically with different version of
    NDIS.VXD. Previously in this thread I linked to one of them,
    http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=243199 , which includes NDIS 4.10.2224.

    Then there's the NDIS from WinME, 4.90.3000.

    If you had some other version of NDIS.VXD in mind, I'd need to know the KB
    or Q #, or filename, as I mentioned previously.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Dude, don't make this complicated, just read what I typed about Windows 98.
    Of course there's several versions of NDIS updates. ...But,
    --The guy posted that he has a problem with Win98SE--
    There's no need for an update to the WinME NDIS at all so why even mention
    it. And let the guy browse over to Bill Gates' site and do his own
    downloading, no need for anyone to be a middleman.
    I don't need the file so you don't need anything from me.


    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:7v7l80pv71gav1iapjqdraem7hcnce1u8o@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 05:38:40 GMT, "Baad Boy" <Boybaad@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >I'm referring to the NDIS update. I have a 3.0C and had the same
    problems
    > >when I tried to load Win98. I downloaded the update 2 months or so ago
    but
    > >I use win2K now.
    > >
    >
    > There's more than one NDIS update, basically with different version of
    > NDIS.VXD. Previously in this thread I linked to one of them,
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=243199 , which includes NDIS 4.10.2224.
    >
    > Then there's the NDIS from WinME, 4.90.3000.
    >
    > If you had some other version of NDIS.VXD in mind, I'd need to know the KB
    > or Q #, or filename, as I mentioned previously.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    If he needs to run *specifique* software for win98, than he should try
    to make all the changes he can to put it to work. Other than that, why
    wouldn't he change to XP ?

    - It's better
    - It's faster
    - It's cooler
    - Manages memory better
    - etc...


    Stormgiant
    P4 3.0@3780 with 1024 GEIL ULTRA PC3500 @2-2-2-5 @403


    On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:02:50 GMT, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >David Maynard wrote:
    >>
    >... snip ...
    >>
    >> Out of curiosity, why are you so dead set on running Win98se, vs
    >> XP, that you'd go to the length of buying another motherboard?
    >
    >Maybe he wants convenient direct access to serial and parallel
    >ports. Maybe he doesn't want to accede to the XP EULA, giving
    >Bill et cie. unlimited snooping and editorial rights on his
    >machine, not to mention the right to force him to upgrade at his
    >expense and their desire.
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Yes, everything posted on newsgroups is public.
    But, what David wrote was a *personal* question. Of course anybody
    could answers, but it was a direct post to the previous poster.
    What of these can't you understand ?

    P.S. - This is an exemple like the other. Anyone can answer this post,
    but it's directed to YOU...


    Stormgiant
    P4 3.0@3780 with 1024 GEIL ULTRA PC3500 @2-2-2-5 @403


    On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:29:54 GMT, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >Topical discussions, including topicallity, are one thing. Note
    >the word "personal" in the above. You started by implying that my
    >theories as to the OPs reasons were unwelcome because your message
    >was directed at one particular party. It was and is not; anything
    >posted to a newsgroup is for public consumption.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:21:23 GMT, "Baad Boy" <Boybaad@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Dude, don't make this complicated, just read what I typed about Windows 98.
    >Of course there's several versions of NDIS updates. ...But,
    >--The guy posted that he has a problem with Win98SE--
    >There's no need for an update to the WinME NDIS at all so why even mention
    >it. And let the guy browse over to Bill Gates' site and do his own
    >downloading, no need for anyone to be a middleman.
    >I don't need the file so you don't need anything from me.
    >

    You were the one that mentioned another patch which was only available
    from pay 'sites. I was trying to be helpful by determining if this was
    really true and if so, I may be able to provide it.

    The subtopic was NDIS, which isn't complicated at all, merely trying
    different versions of it. If it worries you to try WinME files or you
    don't see the significance of it simply being a more up to date version of
    Win9x, then don't try them.
  49. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    X-No-Archive: yes

    >
    > Ok. I did some looking around, and it ain't easy to find folks trying to
    > run Win98se on P4s that fast, but I did find a thread.
    >
    > http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48476
    >
    > Ok, so it isn't your board and it isn't even your chipset, but the dern
    > thing works at 3.06 gig in windows98se.
    >
    > The things different from when your slower P4 worked are the speed of the
    > new one, hyperthreading, that you're overclocking the motherboard to run
    > it, and that you installed it (Don't laugh. What I mean is possible
    changes
    > to BIOS settings.).
    >
    > Ok, that thread shows that the CPU speed alone shouldn't be a killer and
    it
    > suggests that neither is the hyperthreading, but I wonder just what state
    > it's in when the motherboard can neither enable nor disable it. Intel says
    > it 'must' be disabled in BIOS for win98se but that could simply mean 'not
    > enabled', if you see what I mean. I.E. If there is a setting it's either
    > one or the other so 'not one' is 'the other'. But you have 'nothing'.
    Let's
    > assume, for the moment, it defaults to the 'disabled' you need.
    >
    > Next is the overclock. Put it at 100Mhz till the dern thing works, ok?
    Just
    > to get that possibility off the table. One it runs you can bump it back up
    > and worry about 'fixed', or not, PCI/AGP dividers.
    >
    > Now to BIOS. I don't know what the settings used to be, or if they are the
    > same, but it seems suspicious that it hangs on installing things that
    > previously installed. What is "pnp O.S." set for? Reverse it (not pnp is
    > usually best). Do you have APIC enabled? DISABLE it. Frankly, I'm hoping
    > this is your problem because win9x (all of them) does NOT support APIC and
    > that will royally hose it up as windows will be unable to assign the IRQ.
    >
    > Past that, do a general recheck of your BIOS settings to see if something
    > is different from when it worked but, as I mentioned, I'm betting on the
    APIC.

    Thanks for your help - I tried all the above serveral times and nothing
    worked.

    I can only assume its a BIOS bug now. Disabling ACPI IRQ steering works but
    then I get a pseudo
    safe mode windows which is no good.

    I also though it might have been APIC but it didnt solve it.

    Thanks anyway Ill just stick with XP for now.
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware Overclocking