Author Topic: Multiboot machine?  (Read 2865 times)

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #15 on: 28 January 2006, 03:23 »
I'll keep your suggestions in mind but I'll concentrate on setting up the bare essentials first.

One thing I've rememberd about Windows 98 it it's nowhere near as stable as Linux or XP, in the final phase of the installation resulted in a BSOD but I rebooted and all was well and the install wasn't damaged due to this minor fuckup as it was only detecting the plug and play stuff which I've managed to configure manually


Just one observation about Windows 98, it's fucking fast at lots of things, it beats both XP and even Linux at somethings, like starting programs for example. I think this is because it's designed to run on old hardware and the crappy old DOS based kernel is very simple,it doesn't have to check permissions or anything, but it's really bad at multi-tasking and some operations like reading CDs are much slower, even though it has the same speed CD drive as my XP box.

I've had lot's of fun downloading and installing the video driver (640x480 was unbearable) which requied DirectX 8+ so I tried to download the latest version (9.0 if I remember) from the MS website but they wouldn't let me download it that would be far too simple. First I had to download a crappy little program to generate a key proving I haden't stolen XP. I entered it into a form on their site, then (to my horror) when I clicked the download button it didn't download the package but a shitty binary download and install program.

How the fuck was I supposed to download it burn it to CD and install on my doze 98 box?

Answer? Fuck it, I didn't bother, I downloaded a legacy DirectX 8.1 package from another site and installed it.

Anyway ranting aside (I hope I haven't bored you too much) I'm having problems with OpenOffice 2.0.1. The install seemed to go well but when I try to load it, it performs an illegal operation, wtf, I've re-installed it but it makes no difference?

Does anyone know how I can fix this?
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

cymon

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 354
  • Kudos: 172
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #16 on: 28 January 2006, 03:58 »
When I used 98, illegal errors were very common. It's pretty much unavoidable, just a price you pay.

worker201

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,810
  • Kudos: 703
    • http://www.triple-bypass.net
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #17 on: 28 January 2006, 04:54 »
An illegal operation is when a program is trying to access more memory than Windows wants to give it.  If the program can create a scratch or temp space, it will use that instead - that is why Illustrator and Photoshop almost never give this error.  Otherwise, the program tries to steal some memory from Windows itself.

In Windows XP, the core OS is constantly on the lookout for a memory theif, and simply turns it away, and your computer goes into thrashing mode, which is basically an infinite loop where the program wants to take memory and Windows won't give it.  When a program in XP is not responding, often, this is what has happened.

In Windows 98, Windows only checks its memory allocation sporadically, and sometimes a program can get in there and take some.  Eventually, though, the core OS will catch on and kill the process responsible.  Now, when I say core OS, I mean something like the kernel or IO system, because as we all know, Windows Explorer and the Desktop and IE can all pull illegal operations.  Actually, IE was the king of illegal operations, in my experience.

Ways to fix this - get Linux :D

Seriously, though, the more memory you have to spare, the better.  And set your paging file size correctly.  Adobe recommends a min paging file size of (RAM/2)+12, and max size of 2*RAM.  So for 512MB, that's 268 min and 1024 max.

Also, even more esoteric, you can adjust the memory allocation directly.  One thing that you can do in the config.sys file and autoexec.bat file is allocate and deallocate low and hi memory.  Fucking with this without knowing exactly what you're doing can screw things up bad, so I wouldn't recommend this until you've had read a whole book on DOS.

btw, this perspective of the "illegal operation" is childish and generalized - therefore, its only purpose is to illustrate concepts to people who aren't familiar with them.  Anyone who already understands memory allocation procedures in Windows will probably find this version is ridiculously dumbed down.

Pathos

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 518
  • Kudos: 416
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #18 on: 28 January 2006, 10:49 »
Linux isn't as fast as win95 and 98.

I have a DSL frugal install and win2000 is just as fast, although that uses a compressed image (but I'm sure its faster compressed because the harddrive is so slow).

http://www.oldversion.com/ is a great site for restoring old copies of windows.

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #19 on: 28 January 2006, 13:37 »
Yes Windows 98 is faster, it boots faster and loads programs faster, but you pay for this with poorer secuity and stability.

Sorry I didn't give enough information:

Crashrep caused an invalid page fault in module kernel32.dll.

So it looks like OO had already crashed then crash recovery program failed.

Worker,
I can agree with you that this is a memory allocation but I strongly disagree that simply throughing memory at this will solve the problem. I have 256MB installed and this was a hell of a lot when Windows 98 was released when 64MB was typical for a reasonably good machine and I've installed OO 2.0 on a 64MB machine at college with no problems. Both of my systems are far from short of memory and just to prove you wrong I've disabled virtual memory on both of them and they still run smoothly. My XP machine will load OpenOffice 2.0.1 and I've also got Thunderbird and Opera running with five tabs open, and all is well it's only using 123MB - there's still another 133MB free (whoops I need to subtrach 8MB for my on-board graphics, well still 125MB free).

So if this isn't a low memory problem it must be a memory allocation problem which is due to Windows 98 being shit. I know the obvious solution is Linux or indeed even a Windows NT variant but that would be boring I want lot's of OSes and the beauty of Windows 98 is I can run all of my old DOS games and OpenOffice on one platform, if I can get the latter to install. I might try re-installing Windows 98, but I think I'll take this one to the OpenOffice forum first.
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

inane

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
  • Kudos: 233
    • http://www.myblogspace.net/inaneframe
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #20 on: 28 January 2006, 17:32 »
My experience with 98 is that it's faster up until the point you install ANYTHING.. at ALL or spend any time online. Then it begins it's dragging along like that guy from nantucket :D. also I've noticed that 98 performs better on Coppermine Intel chips and P2s than it does on P4s or AMDs comparatively to Linux. Although it's my understanding that P4s were almost a downgrade hehe. It's a desktop OS, what do you expect? It's GREAT if you plan on not networking at all.

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #21 on: 28 January 2006, 19:23 »
As far as stuff affecting the speed of Winodows I think it depends on what you install, fonts slow it down loads and so do shitty 3rd party pieces of software that clog the registry up. OpenOffice shouldn't give me any problems in this respect, I also plan to install ABIWord, 7 Zip, Inksape, Ghost Script and Ghost Script viewer, Acrobat reader.

Don't worry I don't plan to connect it directly to the Internet and it I do it won't be directly, it'll be via my XP/Linux box.

One thing I've noticed though is the ATI Rage card rules, it's only a 650MHz AMD but it kicks my 1800MHz Intel machine's arse into orbit when it comes to graphics. I think I buy a cheap graphics card - anything's got to be better than my shitty on-board adaptor.

My next OS installation will be a Linux, I don't know whether I'll be Ubuntu or Vector Linux SOHO, I think I'll go for the latter first and see how I get along.
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

Orethrius

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,783
  • Kudos: 982
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #22 on: 28 January 2006, 23:43 »
Aloone, I was wondering - why are you bothering with the headaches of '98 for the functionality of DOSBox?  I've not had a problem with it; additionally, I can say that it emerges neatly under Gentoo, having added it myself.

Proudly posted from a Gentoo Linux system.

Quote from: Calum
even if you're renting you've got more rights than if you're using windows.

System Vitals

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #23 on: 29 January 2006, 00:53 »
http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?page=SystemRequirements

How fast's your PC?

It's only a 650MHz AMD - no way near powerful enough to handle protected mode games.

Also try running the classic DOS Quake under DOSBox and you'll see what I mean - even on 3.2GHz when run at 320x200 it's too fucking slow!

One thing I am experimenting with is DOSEmu it uses virtualisation instead of 100% emulation so it's a hell of a lot faster (Quake runs at full speed at a reasonable resolution) but the price you pay is compatability and it's not only DOS stuff I'm having problems with, some Win 9x programs won't run on an NT OS.

Anyway I think I've discovered the problem, I think lots of the stuff I've being trying to install requires Windows 98 SE like MS Word/Excel/Power Point Viewers for example. I'll concentrate on Linux for now then I'll aquire a copy of Win 98SE from a friend.
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Partitioning
« Reply #24 on: 29 January 2006, 20:46 »
Now Windows 98 setup one big fuck-off 20GB FAT32 partition and I've managed to resize it down to 2.68GB. I want to create many partitions for my OSes to live on but I'm having problems, I can't seem to create any more than 5, is this normal?

Is there a way to have any more or I could just connect another hard drive though it'd be a pain in the arse?
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

cymon

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 354
  • Kudos: 172
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #25 on: 29 January 2006, 20:47 »
You can only have 4  primary partitions.

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #26 on: 29 January 2006, 20:52 »
Oh bollocks!

You say "primary partitions" can I have more secondary partitions then?

If I install Vesctor Linux on an ext3 primary partition can I then use a secondary partition for the swap?
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

cymon

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 354
  • Kudos: 172
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #27 on: 29 January 2006, 21:02 »
Yep. OS'es like their boot partitions on primary, but you can share a swap partition, and it can be secondary.

mobrien_12

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,138
  • Kudos: 711
    • http://www.geocities.com/mobrien_12
Re: Partitioning
« Reply #28 on: 29 January 2006, 21:30 »
Quote from: Aloone_Jonez
Now Windows 98 setup one big fuck-off 20GB FAT32 partition and I've managed to resize it down to 2.68GB. I want to create many partitions for my OSes to live on but I'm having problems, I can't seem to create any more than 5, is this normal?

Is there a way to have any more or I could just connect another hard drive though it'd be a pain in the arse?


YOu can have seven.

Three primary partitions.  One extended partition containing four logical paritions.


-----------------------
primary 1 (hda1)


-----------------------
primary 2 (hda2)


-----------------------
primary 3 (hda3)
 

-----------------------
EXTENDED (hda4)

      ==-----------------------  
       log (hda5)

      ==-----------------------
       log (hda6)

      ==-----------------------
       log (hda7)  

      ==-----------------------
       log (hda8)  

      ==-----------------------
-----------------------

hda4 is not accessable directly because it is only a container for the logical partitons.

Even if you make hda3 your extended partion, the logical partitions start numbering at hda5 anyway.

This is, of course, using the MSDOS disklabel system that almost every PC uses.  It's inferior, but you must use it if you want an MS operating system on it.
In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall escape my sight....

mobrien_12

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,138
  • Kudos: 711
    • http://www.geocities.com/mobrien_12
Re: Multiboot machine?
« Reply #29 on: 29 January 2006, 21:33 »
You can put an entire linux install on logical paritions.  Even the boot partition can live on a logical partition if you use GRUB as your bootloader.


FreeBSD needs a primary partition because it breaks it up into "slices".
In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall escape my sight....