98SE setup BSOD?

[sedrosken]

On my recently-acquired Pentium II, I'm currently trying to set up Windows 98SE. uke-l:

The first phase of setup executes flawlessly, and then it boots from the hard drive. It BSOD's at about 46% when trying to initialize it's driver database, with an exception 0E at 0028:C0008997 in VxD ---. That's what it says, VxD ---. I have no idea what that is supposed to represent. I've tried a different hard drive controller card on the suspicion that the onboard one is bad, I've had all sorts of hard drives in there, and I've tried to set up 98SE several times on there. I've also tried W2K and WinXP with some small success -- it refuses to format the hard drive, saying merely that it ran into a problem and couldn't format the disk. It depends on the HDD, too -- on the 20GB drive it ends rather spectacularly with a STOP error on both 2k and XP, but with the 80GB it simply says it couldn't format it after getting to about 98% in the format process.

I need you guys to dredge up all your old Win98SE-related knowledge on this one, guys -- I would very much like to have a working specimen of a Pentium II-based computer, as this one is in excellent condition apart from my being apparently unable to install an OS on it.

 

[sdbardwick]

Heh. MB and OS probably don't know what to do with those gigantic drives.
There might be a jumper you can set on the drives to restrict them to 32 (or 3.2) GB so you can install. Isn't the maximum partition size for FAT32 32GB?
What MB/chipset?

 

[sedrosken]

It's (I think) an in-house IBM mobo with a 440BX chipset. FAT32 cuts off at 2TB, and an updated version of FDISK (which I have) can partition more than 64GB. It sees the 20GB drive for what it is alright but thinks the 80GB is 15GB in BIOS and 10GB through FDISK (that curiously formats out to the full 80GB by using format c: ).

Neither of those drives have those capacity limit jumper settings, but a 10GB drive that I have (unfortunately appears to be dead) does. It limits it to 2.1GB.

 

[jtr1962]

If I recall correctly Windows '98 will work with drives up to 128GB, provided your BIOS supports them. That's a hard limit though because Win '98 only supports 28-bit LBA. I remember having a 100GB drive in a Windows '98 system which worked just fine. Don't remember what I used to partition and format it, though. You might try just putting the 80GB drive temporarily in a system running XP or any O/S which came after that. Partition and format the drive for FAT32, put it back in your old system, then install Windows '98. My guess is once you get over the hurdle of partitioning and formatting the drive, it should be fine.

 

[sdbardwick]

Microsoft support article on large IDE drives and non-NT based Windows.

 

[sedrosken]

I think my selection of hard drives are just bad. I can't get them to work in the Pentium 4 either. I'll see about maybe grabbing a 10 GB drive off of ebay or something. Might also just grab a CF adapter and use a 16GB CF card.

 

[Tannin]

Ask me ten years ago. I'm good at this stuff ten years ago.

 

[Tea]

There are drive capacity limits at (from memory) 512MB, 2.1GB, 4.2 GB (a less common one you probably won't meet), 8.1GB, 32GB, 128GB, and 2TB. What you want is a drive under 10GB. An 8 would be OK, but probably not 10. (Windows isn't likely to be the problem here, it will be your BIOS.) You might even need a 2.1GB drive, or one with an emulation jumper.

Chapter and verse here: http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm

 

[sdbardwick]

Ask me ten years ago. I'm good at this stuff ten years ago.

Yeah, me too. I went NT in '97 (and even got entire family on NT with Win2K) and my 9X/DOS knowledge has been fading rapidly since then.

 

[sdbardwick]

Chapter and verse here: http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm

Dammit Tea, that link just triggered my late 90's inflicted PTSD!

Although that site does appear to offer some good advice for older OS installs (aside from wanting to use Java)

 

[LunarMist]

Dammit Tea, that link just triggered my late 90's inflicted PTSD!

Somehow my old links to SR are of no use. :crap: Master Backup F*ckup was ~Dec 28, 2001. :cursin:

 

[ddrueding]

Chapter and verse here: http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm

Dammit Tea, that link just triggered my late 90's inflicted PTSD!

I really like that site. Normal text on a normal background that respects scaling and doesn't have any flash ads. Perfect for consuming data.

 

[sdbardwick]

Not the style, the content. Back in the day when I knew all of that stuff intimately due to being hit over the head with the various incompatibilities on a daily basis.

 

[ddrueding]

Ah. I just scrolled down to the first table and decided I didn't want to risk the same.

 

[jtr1962]

This was all a nice walk down memory lane. It also makes me appreciate today's systems where we won't face another hard drive barrier until drives reach at least 144 petabytes. If we use 4K sectors then the next barrier would be at 2.3 exabytes instead. Pretty safe to say it's highly unlikely we'll see hard disks that large any time soon.

 

[Tea]

Dunno. How big is Merc's pr0n collection now?

 

[Mercutio]

Has your Windows 98 media been used for anything else? It could just be a media error. VxDs are real-mode (full hardware access) drivers, and they're entirely capable of crashing the whole machine, but the ones you'd probably have on that machine would've come directly from Microsoft. The most likely culprit on a 98SE machine would've been the virtual memory driver, which could point to a disk error, but it could also just be a media error from the source. The normal fix for that kind of crap would be to either replace the file from another machine or just to reinstall Windows 98 and those are the first things I would try here as well.

With regard to Windows 98's disk size limits, the version of fdisk that shipped with 98 would work for drives as large as 160GB without any issues, though it would display the drive as 30somethingGB. That's assuming the hardware you were using had ATA133 or SATA IDE emulation (yes, Windows 98 cam see a SATA drive as long as the BIOS will emulate IDE) support, of course. I believe the hard limit for disk size was at least north of 320GB. I never had reason to try anything larger. I formatted large FAT32 volumes under Linux when I needed them.

Windows 98 also won't use more than 512MB RAM, though it will report more RAM is installed if you have it.

Another hard limit in Windows 98: It won't run without being rebooted for more than 4 weeks. There's a timing counter that exceeds its integer value at around that point.

You can get Windows 98 to install and run on something as new as a Pentium 4 with an i8x0 chipset. It also runs really well in emulation on decent ARM hardware.

 

[Howell]

There is honestly no point in learning anything about 98 anymore. I'd install a linux on it.

 

[jtr1962]

Windows 98 also won't use more than 512MB RAM, though it will report more RAM is installed if you have it.

I had Windows '98 using 1 GB. I think all I had to do was put MaxFileCache=393216 in the system.ini file. Or maybe it was 524288. Don't really remember at this point. It definitely used the RAM. I recall seeing MS Train Simulator alone using over 512MB. That said, memory management in '98 sucks, so obviously you're better off with XP if you have >512MB.

 

[jtr1962]

There is honestly no point in learning anything about 98 anymore. I'd install a linux on it.

I tend to agree. There are loads of reasons '98 was replaced. There are better options now if someone has an older machine.

 

[Mercutio]

There's something to be said for endeavoring to understand where we came from.

 

[sedrosken]

Thanks for the pointers, guys. Going through the motions of trying to reinstall win98 now, maybe it will work from freshly-burned media.

Yes, I had an ISO.

Yes, I have a genuine license, so there's no reason to be concerned.

For the record, I know more than I ever will need to about older OSes and hardware. I'm just doing this because I want a decent machine to play my old games on that refuse to work right on anything newer than XP on hardware it would have been played on.

 

[sedrosken]

So I've got a new headscratcher for you. I finally got Win2k to format the hard drive, but when it gets to the Ds in the file copy list, it BSODs with the error name PFN_LIST_CORRUPT. I'm taking this to mean that I have bad media from what I could find online, so I made another copy. This one does it even earlier.

I haven't tried Windows XP yet. I might have to do that. If I can get Windows XP to install on the blasted thing I might just shove the cover on and leave it alone, after I slim down XP as much as I can of course.

So now I'm going the "testing all my RAM" avenue. It would be positively spectacular if I could get a copy of memtest86+ to load, but I haven't figured out how to write a floppy image to disk from Linux yet. I know how it should work in theory, but when I have my USB floppy drive hooked up, I don't get a /dev/fd0 like I should. I can mount the floppy in Thunar and work with it that way, so I know it can handle the drive.

 

[sedrosken]

XP crashes before getting to the formatting stage with an IRQL_NOT_LESS_EQUAL message. Online research suggests that's shorthand for it doesn't have valid drivers for my hardware, or my RAM is bad. Still scratching my head on Memtest. When I burn it to CD it crashes on the Pentium II.

AAAAAnd I just had a bit of an epiphany.

My RAM is bad. I don't need memtest to confirm this, all I have to do is try setup with each amount of RAM and see what makes it crash.

I need to take it down to the minimum amount I can and test. Then it might actually work! Here I was thinking I had a bad hard drive.

 

[sdbardwick]

Do you need to use a floppy for some reason? Memtest86+ has bootable CD ISOs.

 

[sdbardwick]

XP crashes before getting to the formatting stage with an IRQL_NOT_LESS_EQUAL message. Online research suggests that's shorthand for it doesn't have valid drivers for my hardware. I'm going to try DOS 7.10.

Which computer?

 

[LunarMist]

IIRC, BISO support for hardware and OS was always a problem. I was using 784MB of RAM in 1999, when many computers only had 128-256. I was so glad to move from 98 to 2000 around 2001. 9x was just so ugly, especially the USB drivers, etc. :hurl:

 

[sedrosken]

Took it down to two 64MB modules, 2k installs beautifully now. Looks like I need to raid the high school's parts bin for some 128MB modules that they told me they wouldn't miss... again.

 

[Tea]

Bad RAM can give you disc errors, no question of that. About the third thing I do if I'm getting disc errors on an install is swap the RAM. First, run Gsmartcontrol on it to see if the drive hardware thinks it is OK, then try different install media ('coz a CD can be bad), then it's RAM and power supply.

 

[sedrosken]

Arrrgh!

So I finally got my stuff installed onto it today. It's been perfectly reliable, if a little slow because of its modest stature. I decide to run CHKDSK on the next bootup to see if there's anything wrong with the drive that can be detected to see if I wasted my time again or not.

It completed fine. Next bootup after that, it's caught in a reboot-loop after it starts to load the desktop! Last known good config does the same thing, Safe Mode does the same thing, it just does not stop rebooting!

I'm going to try disabling the 'reboot on crash' feature tomorrow and see if maybe I can catch some sort of BSOD. Next step after that is finding my W2K CD and running a repair operation on the existing install.

 

[Tea]

Have you run Gsmartconltrol or an equivalent utility?

 

[sedrosken]

No. I don't have any such utilities at my disposal, Memtest crashes every time I try and that's all I know how to use. In any case, doing a repair job with the install media fixed the reboot loop.

I was also LIED TO :arge: by the data sheet for this particular machine. It states the machine has a hard maximum of 384 MB of RAM. I have it running an even 512MB and that's with 2 128s and a 256. I didn't know what I was grabbing at the time, which is why I grabbed a 256 rather than another 128. I'm half-tempted to go get another couple 256MB modules and see if it will boot with 768MB of RAM in it.

I'm assuming a BIOS update removed the 384MB limit, as it is running a newer-than-stock build of the BIOS.

I also have a slight hunch that if I were to update the BIOS to its very latest version I would be able to use a 500MHz Pentium III with the machine. It has jumper settings all the way up to 500MHz, so that's what I'm assuming will work. I think they just foresaw a 500MHz Pentium II in the future when this machine came out, and it totally makes sense that they would have thought that.

According to an old magazine I found online, IBM sold this particular model right up to the turn of the century with up to a 600MHz Pentium III. I might just have to buy me one and see how the jumpers set to enable it.

 

[LunarMist]

Are you sure that the hardware is not defective?

 

[snowhiker]

I was also LIED TO :arge: by the data sheet for this particular machine. It states the machine has a hard maximum of 384 MB of RAM.

If the board only has 3 memory slots and two of them ORIGINALLY have 64MB sticks, then 384 would be the limit. Yes you could remove the 64s but perhaps for legal/marketing reasons the 384 limit was specified.

Or they just copied over the specs from an older version of MB (or older BIOS) that they used.

Regardless it's a nice little bonus.

 

[sedrosken]

I am actually very sure. I traced my issues back to some special driver I installed in the hopes of giving my VDMs sound as DOSBOX chugs on the PII. Repairing the install fixed the issue. We'll see as to the new RAM... :shake2:

If the board only has 3 memory slots and two of them ORIGINALLY have 64MB sticks, then 384 would be the limit. Yes you could remove the 64s but perhaps for legal/marketing reasons the 384 limit was specified.

Or they just copied over the specs from an older version of MB (or older BIOS) that they used.

Regardless it's a nice little bonus.

That's actually a very interesting point. That's probably exactly what they did. I'm not seeing much of a point in taking a Pentium II beyond 512MB... that is, unless it manages to evolve into a Pentium III.

As to it being a nice little bonus, indeed it is.

 

[Tannin]

Motherboard manual invalidated and uncorrected after running change update(s) to the hardware? Strewth! Who'd a thunk it!

 

[Bozo]

One thing to remember: IBM might have sold that computer Model Number until 2000, but that does not mean they kept the original internals, like the motherboard. I have work on plenty of IBM and Dell computers that were the same model number, but the motherboards were different.
Down load Partition Wizard. It's free. It is a very useful tool to have for hard drives. It does all the usual hard drive test and can secure erase (write all zeros to the drive) the hard drive. This is great to make sure there is no crap in the Master Boot Record on the disk. Junk in the MBR can have you chasing your tail for days. If you are using used hard drive that came from who knows where, writing all zeros to the drive is the only way to be sure the drive is pristine when you go to used it.

 

[LunarMist]

One thing to remember: IBM might have sold that computer Model Number until 2000, but that does not mean they kept the original internals, like the motherboard. I have work on plenty of IBM and Dell computers that were the same model number, but the motherboards were different.
Down load Partition Wizard. It's free. It is a very useful tool to have for hard drives. It does all the usual hard drive test and can secure erase (write all zeros to the drive) the hard drive. This is great to make sure there is no crap in the Master Boot Record on the disk. Junk in the MBR can have you chasing your tail for days. If you are using used hard drive that came from who knows where, writing all zeros to the drive is the only way to be sure the drive is pristine when you go to used it.

Yeah, there could be several boards, different BIOSes, etc. I was crazy about getting a BX board to work back in the day and found it just could not exceed 384MB.

 

[LunarMist]

There's something to be said for endeavoring to understand where we came from.

A slide rule. I was so happy when the Bowmar Brain came out.

 

[Chewy509]

Yeah, there could be several boards, different BIOSes, etc. I was crazy about getting a BX board to work back in the day and found it just could not exceed 384MB.

FYI, the 440BX could handle up 512MB (regular SDRAM-PC100) or 1GB (RegECC), if you have 4x DIMM slots. (3x slots is limited to 384MB / 640MB (RegECC) - section 4.3 in the datasheet).
The only problem was getting the right sort of RAM to meet all the requirements...

Sed, are you sure it's a 440BX based board, and not a 440GX based board? The 440GX could support up to 2GB of RAM (Reg ECC, 4x slots) or 1GB of regular SD-RAM with 4x slots (max 256MB per slot).