Problems installing Win98SE
Dave Plowman (News)
wouldn't come amiss. Of course I could try just copying the old across but
I'd prefer not to.
PCPro worked as normal - but when trying to install Win98SE off exactly
the same CD as I used before it does all the checks as usual then gives me
an error message about the CPU not being fast enough - says something like
needs to be better than 33mHz. I've got the 586 card - and as I said it
worked before. And still does off the original installation.
--
*Microsoft broke Volkswagen's record: They only made 21.4 million bugs.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Jess
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> I've fitted a second HD to the workshop RPC and decided a fresh Win98SE
> wouldn't come amiss. Of course I could try just copying the old across but
> I'd prefer not to.
>
> PCPro worked as normal - but when trying to install Win98SE off exactly
> the same CD as I used before it does all the checks as usual then gives me
> an error message about the CPU not being fast enough - says something like
> needs to be better than 33mHz. I've got the 586 card - and as I said it
> worked before. And still does off the original installation.
I remember some issue that required the win98 directory to be copied
to the hard drive, and setup run from that. I can't remember the
symptoms though.
--
Jess Iyonix
Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
mailto:nos...@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net or
http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
Greg
says...
> In message <50285c0...@davenoise.co.uk>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I've fitted a second HD to the workshop RPC and decided a fresh Win98SE
> > wouldn't come amiss. Of course I could try just copying the old across but
> > I'd prefer not to.
> >
> > PCPro worked as normal - but when trying to install Win98SE off exactly
> > the same CD as I used before it does all the checks as usual then gives me
> > an error message about the CPU not being fast enough - says something like
> > needs to be better than 33mHz. I've got the 586 card - and as I said it
> > worked before. And still does off the original installation.
>
> I remember some issue that required the win98 directory to be copied
> to the hard drive, and setup run from that. I can't remember the
> symptoms though.
Try 'Setup.exe /nm' it will over-ride the processor check.
Dave Plowman (News)
Thanks. I knew there would be a work round. But why did it work before -
and not now? Using exactly the same Win98SE CD? And using setup/nm/im/ie?
BTW - why those codes rather than just the file name?
As it is I remembered I still had all the PC stuff on a partition on one
disk in this machine - it originally had the 586 processor now fitted to
the other machine. So just copied the entire RISC OS directory across via
sharedisc. Which took several hours. But after making PC configure look at
the new location now works fine.
--
*Hang in there, retirement is only thirty years away! *
Rob Kendrick
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks. I knew there would be a work round. But why did it work
> before - and not now? Using exactly the same Win98SE CD?
Well, 33MHz is clearly bogus, so it may be using some heuristic to
calculate/guess it. If that's the case, then the arrangement of things
on the RISC OS side may have an effect on the answer it gets. (So,
applications using a bit more CPU or memory bandwidth, etc)
> And using
> setup/nm/im/ie? BTW - why those codes rather than just the file name?
Sorry?
B.
Dave Plowman (News)
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > Thanks. I knew there would be a work round. But why did it work
> > before - and not now? Using exactly the same Win98SE CD?
> Well, 33MHz is clearly bogus, so it may be using some heuristic to
> calculate/guess it.
I got that bit wrong - it said 66 mHz. And I presume my 586 card is what
it says?
> If that's the case, then the arrangement of things
> on the RISC OS side may have an effect on the answer it gets. (So,
> applications using a bit more CPU or memory bandwidth, etc)
Windows does report it as a 586 processor.
> > And using
> > setup/nm/im/ie? BTW - why those codes rather than just the file name?
> Sorry?
I wondered what those DOS codes referred to.
Other thing - is there a better basic browser than IE for win98? I only
need to use it occasionally - but really don't want to clutter up the
space with another PC.
--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *
Rob Kendrick
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <20090205092...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks. I knew there would be a work round. But why did it work
> > > before - and not now? Using exactly the same Win98SE CD?
>
> > Well, 33MHz is clearly bogus, so it may be using some heuristic to
> > calculate/guess it.
>
> I got that bit wrong - it said 66 mHz. And I presume my 586 card is
> what it says?
What clock speed is your 586 card, though? I seem to recall they went
up to 133MHz. (I assume it's actually a 5x86, as the RiscPC's bus is
only 32 bit.)
> > If that's the case, then the arrangement of things
> > on the RISC OS side may have an effect on the answer it gets. (So,
> > applications using a bit more CPU or memory bandwidth, etc)
>
> Windows does report it as a 586 processor.
>
> > > And using
> > > setup/nm/im/ie? BTW - why those codes rather than just the file
> > > name?
>
> > Sorry?
>
> I wondered what those DOS codes referred to.
Type setup /? and it will tell you.
> Other thing - is there a better basic browser than IE for win98? I
> only need to use it occasionally - but really don't want to clutter
> up the space with another PC.
Try Opera? You might need to go back a few versions to find something
that runs on Windows 98, though.
B.
Dave Plowman (News)
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > In article <20090205092...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
> > Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > I got that bit wrong - it said 66 mHz. And I presume my 586 card is
> > what it says?
> What clock speed is your 586 card, though? I seem to recall they went
> up to 133MHz. (I assume it's actually a 5x86, as the RiscPC's bus is
> only 32 bit.)
Yes - 5x86 is what windows reports. Dunno the actual clock speed or how to
look for it.
> > > If that's the case, then the arrangement of things
> > > on the RISC OS side may have an effect on the answer it gets. (So,
> > > applications using a bit more CPU or memory bandwidth, etc)
> >
> > Windows does report it as a 586 processor.
> >
> > > > And using
> > > > setup/nm/im/ie? BTW - why those codes rather than just the file
> > > > name?
> >
> > > Sorry?
> >
> > I wondered what those DOS codes referred to.
> Type setup /? and it will tell you.
Right - will do.
> > Other thing - is there a better basic browser than IE for win98? I
> > only need to use it occasionally - but really don't want to clutter
> > up the space with another PC.
> Try Opera? You might need to go back a few versions to find something
> that runs on Windows 98, though.
Ok - I'll do a search.
--
*I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth
Jess
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> Try Opera? You might need to go back a few versions to find something
> that runs on Windows 98, though.
The latest version should work on 95 even, it is the processor power
that may be the problem - they recommend opera 6 for low power
processors.