Windows 98 stops XP and 95 from booting

Hewlett-packard / Imedia s8180ndw
September 27, 2010 at 15:04:34
Specs: Windows 7, 1.8 GHz and
Hi.

I made a working computer out of two old 2005 and 1999 computers, just for the sake of it. The computer works fine, and the first time I connected XP's hard drive it loaded fully. Then I connected 95's hard drive - the GUI throws a protection error (CPU?) but MS-DOS booted fine. Then 98's hard drive - it installs all these drivers and suddenly USB don't work for Windows 98, 95 gets frozen on the startup screen, and XP gives me a black screen with meaningless white letters and a cursor. Please help. I think it's a driver issue but for the life of me I can't figure out how it crossed hard drives. Thanks.

Update: If it helps, the OSes are running on the former XP computer. It has a floppy drive with a dummy in it which for some reason helps the system. I have the 98 computer also if that helps, not connected to anything. Thanks again.


See More: Windows 98 stops XP and 95 from booting

Report •


#1
September 27, 2010 at 15:41:57
It would help to list the system specs. Win95 & Win98 have problems when the memory is 512MB or greater. And XP doesn't "travel" well from one system to another.

Report •

#2
September 27, 2010 at 16:02:00
System Specs: 320 KB RAM, 1.8 GHz P4 processor with 256 KB cache, 75 GB XP hard drive, 2.5 GB 95 hard drive, 98 is in a 15 GB hard drive. Any more specs needed and I'd be happy to help.

Report •

#3
September 27, 2010 at 22:52:55
You should probably install the XP hard disk drive by itsel.f

Then, boot XP and go to Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> System.

Click the Advanced tab, then down to Startup and Recovery, click the Settings button. On the next screen, under System Startup, make sure the time to display operating systems is checked, usually with a value of 30 seconds. Then you should be able to shut down, set the other drives as slaves, then connect them and pick your OS from the boot menu.

I've never tried booting three different hard drives, so there's no guarantee this would work. The easiest way would have been to create three different partitions and install all three OS's on one drive. Of course, you'd have to pick between Windows 95 OR Windows 98, because you can't dual-boot those two together. Installing one would overwrite the other, making it unbootable unless you have a boot manager.

See this computing.net post from 02/DEC/2000:

Dual Boot Win95/98


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
September 27, 2010 at 23:20:07
Thanks sdfox, I'll try that with the 98 and XP. Just one problem - the 95 hard drive has a virus, I don't know what name, but it's the virus that throws the error, I found out today from it's old owner. As I said, it could still boot to MS-DOS before 98 installed something and stuffed it up. So I'd like to keep the 95 hard drive as isolated as possible.

Report •

#5
September 28, 2010 at 03:44:24
No one seems to have mentioned that NT from the begining (NT4) tends to install it's own boot manager by default so that one can dual boot 9x and NT together but always with NT in control of who gets booted. To utilize it, just install 9x first and then install NT and it happens automagically. XP is just another NT flavor with the same built in trait to boot manage the hard drives found. If you use a true boot manager from a third party you can defeat this aspect, but the NT trait will always cloud the issue and the solution to it.

Lee


Report •

#6
September 28, 2010 at 04:11:16
Does that work with a master and slave hard drive? I tried chaining them (I'm wondering if that's how 98 did its evil - but not to 95 :[) but 98 booted instead of XP :/. I'd say in that case you mean two OSes on one hard drive, but I'm trying to extract data off a few problematic 9x hard drives on to my laptop without getting virused or killing them or whatever other horrors could happen. Thanks.

Update: Don't forget that 98 somehow influenced the other hard drives and stopped them from being able to boot. I'd still like to know how that happened, as a second point. Thanks


Report •

#7
September 28, 2010 at 06:01:15
I don't know why you're bothering with Win95, but that's your business. Understand that Win95 & Win98 will not be able to read the WinXP drive unless it's formated as FAT32...most likely it's NTFS.

Assuming 3 HDDs & one optical, I suggest the following configuration:

primary master = Win95
primary slave = optical
2ndary master = Win98
2ndary slave = WinXP

Install a Boot Manager such as GAG, then you can choose which drive to boot from at startup.

http://gag.sourceforge.net/


Report •

#8
September 28, 2010 at 13:13:21
Sounds good, I'll give that a go. I'll keep ya posted on how it goes.

I always thought that slave drives didn't do the booting. How can a slave CD be a boot manager then? Just wondering. Thanks


Report •

#9
September 28, 2010 at 14:44:32
Am I allowed to start a tidier new thread on this subject?

Report •

#10
September 28, 2010 at 18:32:29
neohaxx123

You can edit #9 if that's what you mean, to make it state the true situation.
Icon just above it on right.

Ms Hulot's boat


Report •

#11
October 1, 2010 at 14:16:01
jam:
I don't like correcting people for the sake of correcting them, but i have successfully ran windows 95 on a computer with 512 mb of ram. the 512 mb of ram didn't cause any problems.

neohaxx123:
it did turn out, however, that win 95 has a general protection fault when running on an amd athlon. does the current motherboard have an athlon and not an intel by any chance?


Report •

#12
October 4, 2010 at 08:05:40
Re #11

Yep W98 will usually run with 512M of RAM (as does mine) but not any more without a line in system.ini to limit Vcache. However on these boards I do recall folk who had trouble with 512M itself without the system.ini fiddle. 512M is the border line.

Ms Hulot's boat


Report •

#13
October 5, 2010 at 23:19:55
As to #6 and what 98 did to the other hard drives/partitions? It may have removed (cleared) the active partition bit which is required to be set in order to boot same. Fdisk regularly does it and under no circumstances will it allow any drive or partition other than C:\ (as fdisk sees it) to be active. Aefdisk.com allows any and all partition(s) to be set active and thus bootable.

Norton AV used to clobber the MBR automatically, any chance you got something Norton running on that 98 box?

Lee


Report •

#14
October 6, 2010 at 09:54:49
jz:

As Derek pointed out, 512MB is the cutoff point. *Some* people are able to run Win9x/ME with 512MB, others are not.

http://www.memorystock.com/windows-...

http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...


Report •

#15
October 6, 2010 at 11:42:58
Re #15

Err... yes, the "patch" refers to editing the system.ini file as stated.

Ms Hulot's boat


Report •

#16
October 6, 2010 at 16:54:53
You may be able to "patch" a Win9x system to allow it to run with 4GB RAM but it will NOT use 4GB RAM...2GB is the limit.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/181594

http://www.computing.net/answers/wi...


Report •

#17
October 7, 2010 at 16:18:51
Hi
@jz: It's definitely running on an Intel Pentium III, and @ melee5, Win98 has Norton AV. Would that be causing any problems? I can't even access DOS now because himem.sys somehow corrupted, and I've got no 95 boot disks. I can do step-by-step confirmation, but it takes for ever. @everyone else, I'm sure this thread wasn't a discussion about RAM :) RAM specs are 64 MB SDRAM, well within the range of 9x.
As always, thanks for the help.

Update: I changed the CPU to an 800 MHz Pentium III - thought it might help. No difference.


Report •

#18
October 7, 2010 at 16:46:44
Just wondering -
I don't understand why MS-DOS needs himem.sys to load. If I'm correct, that file is only needed to load the Win95 GUI, which needs more than 1 MB of memory, but MS-DOS has a CLI and should survive without that extra RAM. Why won't MS-DOS load because of himem.sys?
Thx

Report •

#19
October 7, 2010 at 23:15:10
neohaxx123,
MS-DOS doesn't need himem.sys to load but windows does need it in order to load in and run. 95 also needs it loaded in order to run setup.exe in order to install Windows 95 in the first place, but most 95 boot floppies don't have or load himem.sys so it fails to work as intended.

98 bootdisks normally load himem.sys as a mater of course so no such problems there.

Norton AV is to blame for killing multiboot that you once had, the active partition bit is in the MBR of each partition which got replaced on every drive in your system when Norton AV bombed them all. Solved if you ask me. Solution is to remove all things Norton. Brutal, but the ONLY solution since Norton gives you NO other choice in the matter.

Himem.sys missing messages are tantamount to Windows asking for an over the top reinstall of Windows. Lord only knows why it went missing or why Windows can't find it anymore. My pet theory is that a root problem with DMA access and hard drives (buss mastering) can lead to bad data patterns being created while still in DOS mode. Higher priced systems don't have these defects so they don't ever suffer from such symptoms - but ones like my chaintec 5ttm1 still have issues in DOS mode.

MS-DOS ****is**** loading without himem.sys - that's the system that is telling you that himem.sys is missing. Because it is then running win.com which first tests for a loaded himem.sys file and has that error message in it when it can't find the proper memory structures that Himem.sys brings to the table.

Lee


Report •

#20
October 7, 2010 at 23:42:03
Thanks for the help, but is there any way to nuke Norton when the HD can't boot? I'd quite like to know why it takes DOS so long to give me the step by step confirmation options on 95 and just to load anything in general - nothing norton on that system so that's out. Thanks for the help.

Report •

#21
October 9, 2010 at 14:43:17
If you need a boot disk, you can one here:

http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm

As for all this DOS talk, the DOS 7 that loads with Win95 is different from previous versions. Maybe your problem is with autoexec.bat & config.sys? Win9x doesn't need them, in fact, it will run better without them.

"Booting Windows 95 without loading CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT is the preferred method because it increases your machine's speed by loading 32-bit drivers instead of 16-bit DOS-based drivers. This technique also saves conventional memory in a DOS session."

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/...

http://winmac.mvps.org/win95dos.html


Report •

#22
October 9, 2010 at 15:39:18
Jam

Liked your technet link - nice find.

Last link didn't seem to work.

Ms Hulot's boat


Report •

#23
October 9, 2010 at 16:54:19
Thanks for the help. I'm getting a replacement processor for this old box (I know where to get $3 Pentiums, ancient though), the old one died. I'll try to fix up the 95 load process (good technet link), but it takes an age to ask me if I want to load files in step-by-step confirmation, bloody annoying. The system's well within 95 specs so I can't understand why it does that. Does anyone? Cheers

Report •

#24
October 9, 2010 at 21:04:00
I've got the replacement CPU - still waiting for answers. Thanks.

Report •

Ask Question