Strange problem

Atolsammeek · Dec 24, 2001

Ok the problem is I m getting a Windows Protect Error. But if I leave the computer on untell the temp gets 45c and reboot it runs great. I can reboot and it runs.

And three days ago my cdrw drive will not load up unless in dos. It locks up windows before it even load up windows.

Here my system

amd athlon 1800
pc 2100 3 512 1.53 gigs of ram of Mushkin (I tired with one 512 megs still the same problem With the temp and Cdrw.)
1 cdrom and 1 cdrw.
two hard drives.

Is there a way I can reinstall windows 98 with out loseing some of my software. Or I can go out and get windows XP Pro and still keep the software. Like my games.

Thanks for the Info
Atol

OldBear · Dec 24, 2001

There are issues with over 512 meg of ram and win98. You have an outstanding system and you probably should upgrade to win2k or XP because it will utilize all of your ram.

Remember.... You get what you pay for.

All advice here is free.

Atolsammeek · Dec 24, 2001

thing is this did not start to happen untell 3 days ago I had the system for about 2 months.

OldBear · Dec 24, 2001

Have you added any new software? Are you overclocking?

Remember.... You get what you pay for.

All advice here is free.

Era · Dec 24, 2001

Win98 goes haywire with more then 512MB of ram.
There is no way to tell how it reacts to it.

Atolsammeek · Dec 24, 2001

this been the frist time I had problems. And even with my last system with 768 megs of ram which ran great. I dont think it the memory. If it was I would be having problems from day one

Atolsammeek · Dec 24, 2001

the Only Software I added in the last few days was CD Writer Plus HP cdrom. That when the problem started. So It could be ATAPI drivers for the cdrom. Which I had to use to load windows.

What I had to do was install half of windows. then use the boot up disk install the drivers for the cdrom then reboot. Then everything installed right. Befor it seid cdrom where missing. halfway in the install. Its running MSCDEX.exe.

I have uninstalled cdwriter Plus. But the problem still there. use the uninstall in windows and the one in system suite so I know it gone.
Oh what the hell is this Underline crap On Boot

pike · Dec 24, 2001

Hey, you guys !
He has said he tried 512 meg and had the same prob.
Help this guy, come on !

Danny

Duby the snake now has a brand new skin :lol:

Atolsammeek · Dec 25, 2001

I was reading another post. About Frezzing Up. Mine dont once running it runs great. All my problems are on the startup. I did order a better cdrw drive. 40/10/24 for $80 New.

pike · Dec 25, 2001

Sorry, maybe Santa can help.
Or maybe Rudolph's red nose can do magic.

Danny

Duby the snake now has a brand new skin :lol:

Crashman · Dec 25, 2001

I think anyone who tells someone who has had NO PROBLEMS with windows 98SE to downgrade to Windows XP should be cained, shot, and thrown of the roof of a 10 story building before they die. Just an opinion.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Atolsammeek · Dec 25, 2001

dont like win xp?

Crashman · Dec 25, 2001

I couldn't find anything to like about it. My system runs stable under 98SE. XP used lots more resources, making my programs run around 20% slower. But since frequently used programs have their startup files cached to RAM, they STARTED faster, only to disappoint with slower performance. It hogged all my memory, making it necessary to upgrade to 512MB, from 256MB, which was already overkill for 98SE. There were no drivers for about half of my cards. Many of my programs were incompatable. But the slowness part was the worst thing, other than the fact that I couldn't do video editing anymore because there weren't drivers available for ANY of my input cards!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Intel_inside · Dec 25, 2001

downgrade to XP? lol. Only if you want 3 week uptimes vs. the 3 day uptimes (if you are lucky) of win98. The NT kernal kicks the win9x one's (dos) ass.

AMD's thermal protection: as seen in tom's burning chip video

Crashman · Dec 25, 2001

I see your familiar with VIA. Anyway, MY systems stay up for MONTHS on 98SE!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Era · Dec 25, 2001

<A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/search/viewDoc.aspx?docID=KC.Q253912&dialogID=7044923&iterationID=1&sessionID=anonymous|5072622" target="_new">http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/search/viewDoc.aspx?docID=KC.Q253912&dialogID=7044923&iterationID=1&sessionID=anonymous|5072622</A>

Matisaro · Dec 25, 2001

Crash, if you used modern capture cards instead of 5 year old legacy stuff you wouldnt have that problem.

As for 20% slower, show us some benchmarks to prove this.

Thirdly, I am running xp fine on 256 and I am running as fast as I did with 98se.

Stability, I have NEVER crashed xp yet, and its been months, my 98se, while very stable,(a properly configured os is a happy os) did crash once or twice a month.

Crash, I realize you use legacy stuff and modern os's may not live up to your stringent demand for compatability(which is perfectly understandable and fine), but slamming xp on stability and speed ESPECIALLY since you, if I recall correctly, only used the beta, is laughable.

Xp is a good os, if someone was buying his first os today, I would reccomend it whole heartedly, the only case I can see for not buying xp is if you already have 2k. (98se is fast, but it is not nearly as stable as xp/2k. and IMO, the small loss in speed(perhaps 5-10% for games, 5% for apps) is WELL worth the added stability.

As for "many of my programs were incompatable" statement, I would like a list of your incompatable programs crash, because with the compatability updates(like patches adding more programs to the list of compatable programs) and the windows 9x compatability function, there should be VERY FEW, apps which cannot run in xp. Bear in mind that the beta was a long ways from the final in that rgeards especially, and many apps the beta could not run, the final version was able to. Perhaps the fact you were using the beta version of xp is the explination for your obvious hatred of the os. Maybe you should get a copy of the final version to try out, to be fair.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

Intel_inside · Dec 25, 2001

months?

I'm sorry but that is a lie.. I have never seen win98 run for more than 2 weeks without rebooting and that was a very extreme case.

AMD's thermal protection: as seen in tom's burning chip video

Crashman · Dec 25, 2001

Have you ever tried to run a Brute Force on an 9 digit word in less than a month? How could a person do such things if their system wasn't stable for well over a month?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Ncogneto · Dec 25, 2001

My system runs stable under 98SE. XP used lots more resources, making my programs run around 20% slower.

The same can be said about an upgrade from 95 to 98 or 3.1 to 95 or dos to 3.1 and on and on. You can tweak xp and turn off its bloatware and reduce the overhead. I highly suspect that you know 98 like the back of your hand, take the time to learn xp the same way you might be suprised.

There were no drivers for about half of my cards

Who's to blame for this? MS or the cards maker?

I have a qlogic hba 2100 card, care to find me any win 98 drivers for it? Nodda...zip. win 98 has limitations for RAM, no dual processor support, no file level access sharing, etc etc. Basically it is a gamers OS and if you are only in to games then 98 is a good OS.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don;t tell you!

Crashman · Dec 26, 2001

I'd be using 95 if it had better support for AGP and USB. I went to 98SE to GAIN compatability, now why would I want to GIVE UP compatability?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Ncogneto · Dec 26, 2001

Compatibility is a bit of a misnomer. It very well could be that 98SE is more compatible with your hardware than XP. However, this is a far cry from making the broad statement that 98se is a more compatible OS than XP. Issues that will eventually kill 98SE:

No file level access sharing ( i.e. no ntfs )

No support for RAM sizes above 512 meg ( this will become more and more important as apps require more and more RAM)

No dual processor support

No support for 64 bit pci, thus no support for the best SCSI/fiber channel arrays.

It's not what they tell you, it’s what they don't tell you!

Crashman · Dec 26, 2001

It will be quite some time before I need any of those things. Typical useres never will, but they'll get XP because that's what's shipping, the poor fools.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Ncogneto · Dec 26, 2001

Actually that will be my next project( fibre channel) as quite frankly I am bored to death with overclocking. The only overclocking project that interests me anymore is being able to run at a fsb of 166 with pci and agp in spec on an athlon processor.

You can now pick up good 20 gig 10,000 rpm 4 mb cache fibre channel drives for dirt cheap ( less than 50 bucks, sometimes lower than 30). You can also pick up a decent hba for around $100.00 sometimes less. Imagine a JBOD with 4 of these striped in a raid 0 config. Take a peak at this site <A HREF="http://24.23.123.57/index2.html" target="_new">http://24.23.123.57/index2.html</A>

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

Crashman · Dec 26, 2001

Where do I get a great deal on an HBA? Is there any such thing as an HB/SCSI adapter, for my other devices?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Strange problem

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Share this page