Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Strange problem

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 24, 2001 5:28:00 AM

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

More about : strange problem

December 24, 2001 5:35:31 AM

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.

<font color=blue>Remember.... You get what you pay for. :smile: All advice here is free.</font color=blue> :wink:
December 24, 2001 5:49:17 AM

thing is this did not start to happen untell 3 days ago I had the system for about 2 months.
Related resources
December 24, 2001 5:55:18 AM

Have you added any new software? Are you overclocking?

<font color=blue>Remember.... You get what you pay for. :smile: All advice here is free.</font color=blue> :wink:
December 24, 2001 6:09:44 AM

Win98 goes haywire with more then 512MB of ram.
There is no way to tell how it reacts to it.
December 24, 2001 7:41:10 AM

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
December 24, 2001 7:54:39 AM

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
December 24, 2001 12:53:12 PM

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: 
December 24, 2001 10:23:49 PM

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.
December 24, 2001 11:49:58 PM

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: 
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2001 2:37:10 AM

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?
December 25, 2001 3:03:39 AM

dont like win xp?
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2001 4:03:06 AM

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?
December 25, 2001 4:16:00 AM

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.

<i>AMD's thermal protection: as seen in tom's burning chip video</i>
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2001 4:37:29 AM

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

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
December 25, 2001 8:03:05 AM

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!
December 25, 2001 1:16:19 PM

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.

<i>AMD's thermal protection: as seen in tom's burning chip video</i>
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2001 4:09:42 PM

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?
December 25, 2001 8:12:05 PM

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2001 9:47:48 PM

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?
December 25, 2001 10:20:32 PM

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!
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2001 3:22:03 AM

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?
December 26, 2001 3:56:34 AM

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&lt;/A>

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2001 6:20:48 PM

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?
December 26, 2001 6:29:25 PM

"Problem problem Problem the problems is you, What you gonna do with your problem"

name that tune!

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
December 26, 2001 7:02:58 PM

right now your best bet is ebay. the recent fallout of dotcoms has left alot supply out there.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2001 8:20:04 PM

Isn't Fiberchannel an extension of SCSI? Are their cards that can support both?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
December 26, 2001 8:36:29 PM

yes it is but no not to my knowledge. Fibre channel is a little like serial SCSI with support of up to 127 devices.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
December 26, 2001 9:16:03 PM

Ass wipe go [-peep-] you self.
You need a life. And your too dumb to get a girl.
December 26, 2001 10:54:20 PM

"Ass wipe go [-peep-] you self.
You need a life. And your too dumb to get a girl."

now, now, calm down boy! no need to foam at the mouth :smile: do you think that's any way to talk on this forum? I think you need to go see a vet for some shots.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
December 27, 2001 1:15:04 AM

yawn

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
December 27, 2001 1:18:47 AM

Yawn to the 10 th power about all this bad sentiment.

Danny

No Barbie Dolls under the tree this Xmass! :frown:
a b à CPUs
December 27, 2001 1:20:41 AM

Why then did they develope serial ATA, when Fiberchannel already existed? Just to give us more standards?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
December 27, 2001 1:44:05 AM

I do not know enough about serial ata to answer that actually. Fibre channel can be incredibly fast, but for some reason they never tried to adopt it to the standard pc, mainly I guess because of the outrageous costs. Just like everything else, cost comes down and it is starting to look very interesting. Myself I love to tinker. Throwing together a JBOD ( just a bunch of disks) in a seperate tower enclosure and obtaining transfer rates between 100-200 MB/s would be incredible and would be usefull for quite awhile.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
December 27, 2001 2:09:08 AM

I had an issue with HP software and win98se when I was using that os. The problem was with HP Simple Trax. Windows will recognize the CD Writer Plus as a cdrom and load its own standard drivers. Did you install HP Simple Trax?

<font color=blue>Remember.... You get what you pay for. :smile: All advice here is free.</font color=blue> :wink:
December 27, 2001 5:26:04 AM

it's sad to see such immaturity on this board

<i>AMD's thermal protection: as seen in tom's burning chip video</i>
December 27, 2001 5:34:51 AM

I ordered a 40/10/24 speed. cdrw. So that should fix that problem.

Anyone here use the Winramturbo? Well if you have alot of ram Like I do and useing Windows 98. This program great. Before I was useing 512 megs of ram. out of 1.53 gigs. I was waiting to get win. xp Pro. Which for one disk It cost to much. Now I use 25% to 80% of my ram. Three programs Winramturbo sisoft and PC alert3 (MSI program) They are all telling me How much ram I used.
December 27, 2001 7:39:11 AM

the thing alot of people don't understand is windows might seem to use alot of ram on a system that has alot of ram, but it really isn't. Windows tries to take advantage of as much ram as it can, caching programs and such, so everything runs smoother. There is no point having more ram if it's not being used. Besides when you actually run a program that needs alot of ram it is freed up for that program, assuming you have enough to run it comfortably.

<i>AMD's thermal protection: as seen in tom's burning chip video</i>
December 28, 2001 5:48:03 AM

I ask the company that makes Winramturbo and here what they seid

Windows gobbles up as much RAM as it can in large chucks each time
a new application is run.

When an application closes down, Windows releases a small portion of the
previous RAM, never releasing most of it when it is no longer needed.

What happens if you do not run a RAM manager, like WinRamTurbo, is that
gradually over a short period of time, whether you are on the Internet or
running RAM hungry games, the total left RAM resources get critically low
so Windows starts to hang or runs very sluggish, eventually Windows
will freeze up or just plain stop since their are no more RAM resources to pool from.

WinRamTurbo monitors the RAM resources and when triggered, it releases the unused
RAM that had been allocated to a now closed application. No matter how much RAM you
have, more the better to speed up applications that need it, you need a RAM manager
to return the unused/unneeded RAM back into the overall RAM pool of resources which
allows you to go longer using your computer before it tends to need to be rebooted.

What Windows does to the RAM is like PACman eating up the RAM everytime
an application is turned-on, and PACman continues to eat up the RAM resources until
there are NO more to eat. Windows does give back some of its RAM, but will never
voluntarily give back the large chuck it took in the first place. You get back nuggets, so to
speak.

I see lots of people who favor a dif program say very bad things about a competitor's
program, and they usually don't have a clue to what really works, Time will always tell
how your performance has been, if you get good performance, something must be working.
Stay with what works, let the others find out what really works.

Hope this helps you understand this better! 8-))
December 28, 2001 6:47:27 AM

win2k-sp2 will always run the fastest and most stable, win98SE is the second best OS to date!
win XP is a piece of crap!-eXtremely craPpy!

it was always know that miscorsoft released the XP to make people buy new hardware as the old mechine would run slow with it.

for the DOS>3.11 and win 95>98 comment- dos>3.11(duh), graphic GUI??, 95>98 was NOT slower!, 98 was more stable and more bug free.


<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
December 28, 2001 10:46:58 AM

LoL, there is no reason to upgrade from win2k unless you get it free...cough.


But windows xp is not crap, it is one of the most stable and well balanced os's microsoft has ever made.

Alot of people downloaded a pirate copy of the damn beta and are compplaining about issues, what they need to do it take a look at what they were testing, and shut up about it.

win2k=xp
win2k>98se
xp>98se


THE ONLY TIME 2K IS BETTER THAN XP IS WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE 2K AND DONT WANNA SPEND 100 BUCKS FOR XP.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
December 28, 2001 1:10:25 PM

Quote:
for the DOS>3.11 and win 95>98 comment- dos>3.11(duh), graphic GUI??, 95>98 was NOT slower!, 98 was more stable and more bug free.

NO Sh*t Sherlock! The fact dos to 3.11 included a GUI does not change the fact. For this same reason ( as the xp GUI is more complex ) is why xp is a bit slower. Want to speed it up? Turn of the effects! Your 95 to 98 statement is laughable. 98 is still built on a 16 bit kernel ( with some 32 bit extensions). Nothing more than a gamers platform.

Quote:
win2k-sp2 will always run the fastest and most stable

LOL I noticed you managed to put SP2 in there, nuff said. XP runs on an AMD platform out of the box, does not need to be patched and repatched 2 times. No amd patch. Win 2K out of the box was very problematic, you might want to wait until XP has been around as long as 2k to make souch a bold "always" statement.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
December 28, 2001 3:24:11 PM

yes Sh* sherlok!XP has a GUI for kids, 95 was a BIG imporement over the 3.11 as was 3.11 over DOS, STILL 98 was built to be a more stable 95, gamers platform? why you has some other OS to use in office? what was it winNT?LOL.

as far as i tested WIN2k(no SP) is faster/more stable and way more workable then XP, this is not from some reviews i read this is from pure expiriance, as i run an FTP server on a Win2K mechine, winXP just eats up ram!

duh SP2, doesnt mean that retail wasnt that good!

go write some DOS commands..like "format c:\"..

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
December 28, 2001 7:18:18 PM

Quote:

STILL 98 was built to be a more stable 95, gamers platform? why you has some other OS to use in office? what was it winNT?LOL.

Its hard to argue against wisdom like that......

Lets disect your arguments a bit here. First you made the statement that win 98 is as fast as 95, this is wrong.

Second you make the statement 98 is the second most stable OS to date. Nope, sorry, 98 is not as stable as xp, no hacked 16 bit kernel is. Please don't confuse stability and compatability.

You make silly arguments of my comparisons of the changes in M$ operating systems. Fact of the matter is every new OS from M$ consumes a bit more processor power and RAM than the one previous, XP being no exception. You don't like the GUI in XP? Why not just go back to the classic view?

What will give you a better OS, XP out of the box on an AMD system, or Win2k before all the patches? Or look at it this way, what will take more tinkering around with after installing of the disk to get everything up and running right? Don't you think XP will get better as it has more time to mature as Win2k has?

Great you run win2k on an FTP server......if that is all your using it for you should give linux a go.

Don't get me wrong, 2k is a good OS, but XP is a bit more rounded OS. If you think Win2K was great right from the release you are dillusional.




It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
December 28, 2001 10:07:12 PM

Cash...yer just gonna have to upgrade that ancient hardware! :-)

I want to die like my Grandfather...in my sleep...not screaming in terror like his passengers.
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2001 10:40:30 PM

Nah, I'll just stick with 98SE, since it works so well!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
December 29, 2001 6:51:42 AM

i do have Linux installed just dont like working with it, after installing Mandrake 8.0 is wouldnt work, the GUI is [-peep-], seems to be a problam with my mechine(?).
ill just burn mandrake 8.1 and see if they fixed it, still wont use it as an FTP coz i sometimes use it to play games on LAN with both mechines(2 users).

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
!