[aclug-L] Re: If you had a Win98se Question what forum/blog would you go to?

[ironrose <ironrose@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the info Tom.  The mobo that I had the problems with was on a 
via chipset mobo with 512mb of ram and I thought the problem was with 
win98se.  RedHat ran ok on this mobo with 512mb of ram and so I didnt 
dualboot that pc.  I like your idea to have a dual boot with win98se for 
the games.  I have a dual boot with win2k, but now I can't get updates 
on the win2k anymore.  I don't think the problem is because I dual boot 
with Mandrake 10.1.  I think I need to do a repair on the win2k and then 
I have to reinstall lilo. 

BTW-- I use seperate hard drives for the different OSs.  I know that I 
dont have to but I seem to have less problems with the pc if I do.

Thomas Wallis wrote:

>On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, ironrose wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Very good observation.  I was wondering why that question was being
>>asked.  When I had win98se, I wasn't able to use 512mb of ram in the
>>computer without it becoming glitchy.  I took the ram back down to 384mb
>>and I had less problems.  Just an FYI as to what happened to me.  :-(
>>    
>>
>
>       This sounds like a good trick to try.  It can't hurt anything.
>
>       I have a computer running 98 (dual boot with SUSE 10).  It has 
>512M of memory.  I don't have too many problems with it (it is an Athlon). 
>98 crashes fairly regularly, but I don't expect much from it.  I use SUSE 
>for all of my printing, websurfing, etc (98 only for the games).  My 
>version of 98 is the upgrade edition from 95, and it does have some USB 
>support.  I have an HP inkjet on it, as well as a USB mouse.  The mouse 
>works, I don't think I have ever printed anything under Windows with it.
>
>       I did run across a motherboard once that had trouble with large 
>amounts of memory.  It was a VIA chipset about the same age as the 
>original poster's machine.  This machine is a file server for the CS Dept. 
>It has 512M of memory in it.  When I put more memory (1G) in it, it slowed 
>down dramatically (running LINUX!).  Otherwise, it worked fine.  I could 
>only guess that either the chipset had trouble with large amounts of 
>memory or the motherboard itself was subtley defective (maybe bad memory 
>slots?). Anyway, I took it back to 512M and it is still running today.
>
>                               Good luck!
>
>                               Tom W.
>
>  >
>  
>
>>Carl D Cravens wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, michael holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I think that usb is strictly a 98SE only.  I was always told to install
>>>>at least 98SE if usb was going to be used.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>And David said the OS in question was Win98SE... heck, it's in the
>>>_subject line_ of the message.  So I don't get why people keep
>>>dragging the "you have to have SE to do USB" into the equation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
>>visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>believed to be clean.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>Disclaimer: All opinions expressed here are my own and not those of WSU.
>
>EMAIL address:  wallis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
>visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
>
>
>  
>


-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi