Windows 98SE Shutdown on Thinkpad T43

[Ebony Ivory]

For various reasons, I still use Windows 98SE as my main operating system, with assorted machines running 2K, XP and (soon) Vista for software testing purposes.

On my desktop (HP) and old (Compaq) machines, when I "shutdown" from Windows, I return to a MS-DOS prompt. But on the T43, the machine switches off. Does anyone know how to get the T43 to return to DOS on shutdown, like my older machines?

Brian

[Wiz]

If i remember correctly shutdown problems is pretty common using Win98 and a lot of people had such a problem using Win98. But the normal behavior would be for the PC to power off when you chose to shutdown the computer so in this case it seems like your T43 is the only one working as it should when you shutdown your computer. Also on some older computer there was a message that told you it's safe to turn off the computer and it didn't power off automatically.

I cannot remember that i seen PC's with Win98 enter dos when you shutdown the computer and would say that's not a normal behavior for a computer when you chose to shutdown. Maybe there is some changes that can be done to make the computer behave like that even if i cannot see the benefit.

Why do you want the computer to go into dos when you choose to shutdown? Isn't the whole point with shutdown to stop windows and power off the computer?

[pianowizard]

I cannot remember that i seen PC's with Win98 enter dos when you shutdown the computer

Me neither. The only version of Windows I have seen that enters DOS after shutdown is Win3.1!

[Ebony Ivory]

If you're using APM, rather than ACPI, to handle your machine's power management, and you rename WIN.COM to WIN98.COM (or somesuch), then Windows 98 reboots to DOS, just like Windows 3.1 (and indeed, Windows 95).

As someone who's been using Windows since 2.x, I prefer this mode of use: it gives me massive control over virus and trojan attacks (I can locate and simply zap the files in true DOS mode), and also enables me to maintain any number of back-ups of Windows (all files plus the registiry) independently of each other, and re-install whichever I want as often as I need.

Compared with relying on "Access IBM" and/or XP's save/restore points, my method of keeping my machine running cleanly has worked brilliantly for over 10 years (since I was using Win95).

A number of my BATch files run from DOS, and call "WIN98" to do a job, before returning to DOS and carrying on where they left off. If my machine reboots completely on shutdown, I have to run the second half of these batch files by hand on regaining control.

That's why I'd like to get an APM-style shutdown, rather than an ACPI-style one. And FWIW, I have a fairly recent HP workstation and even newer Compaq laptop, both of which I've managed to get to work the way I want. Just my new Thinkpad is causing me angst right now!

Brian

[GomJabbar]

And FWIW, I have a fairly recent HP workstation and even newer Compaq laptop, both of which I've managed to get to work the way I want. Just my new Thinkpad is causing me angst right now!

"You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em..."

EDIT: Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Wiz]

As someone who's been using Windows since 2.x, I prefer this mode of use: it gives me massive control over virus and trojan attacks (I can locate and simply zap the files in true DOS mode), and also enables me to maintain any number of back-ups of Windows (all files plus the registiry) independently of each other, and re-install whichever I want as often as I need.

Compared with relying on "Access IBM" and/or XP's save/restore points, my method of keeping my machine running cleanly has worked brilliantly for over 10 years (since I was using Win95).

If you have not been infected for 10 years why would you need to enter dos all the time to cleanup the virus and worms:-) On my PC it's stopped automatically.

You are not the only one that been using Win 2.x or even used a PC before Windows, but a lot of things changed since that time.

[Ebony Ivory]

Wiz, to my knowledge (and that of McAfee), incoming viruses and trojans have never made it out of my mailbox. However, I do, from time to time, download and experiment with demo software and interesting utilities from assorted third parties, and my favourite (and guaranteed) uninstall is simply to reformat D: and unzip my pristine, read-only (as in CD-ROM) Windows image back onto it.

I know Windows XP - together with McAfee/Symantec/Norton is supposed to stop viruses, trojans, spyware and so on in its track - so how come so much of this stuff is still around and about?

Brian

[Wiz]

I know Windows XP - together with McAfee/Symantec/Norton is supposed to stop viruses, trojans, spyware and so on in its track - so how come so much of this stuff is still around and about?
Brian

Well this could be an endless discussion and is not really related to to you first post, but to answer your question i believe the main problem is that a lot of people is not protected with antivirus, antispyware, use a firewall and does not update windows with security updates. For does that actually do this the virus, worm problems i think is not such a big problem. Of course you can never be 100% safe. It wouldn't be correct to look at one single PC though when talking about the safety of Win98 and WinXP because i have not been infected once using Win2k or WinXP. I received worms by mail that was stopped and also downloaded files that was infected, but they where blocked, cleaned or deleted before i had the chance to use it. But that doesn't prove WinXP is 100% safe.

Anyway regarding your shutdown problem it's been so long since i used Win98 and have no idea if there is a workaround. Hopefully someone else have some good advice how to help you out with this issue.

[Ebony Ivory]

You're right this pro-and-con discussion could go on. But just consider one more thing: my lovely 2.0GHz Pentium is spending its entire time doing the jobs I throw at it: not running firewalls (I have hardware for that), background virus scanners and malicious software removers. This means things run FAST.

My T43 (2GHz Centrino) is actually a slower machine running XP than my new HP nc6320 (which is a 2GHz Centrino Duo) - by some margin - but it's quicker at any given job when running in Win98 compared with the HP's XP.

I like being in charge of my horsepower!!

Brian

[Wiz]

Well it's about pro-and-con, but for me there is to many benefits by running Win2000 or newer and actually i have no choice. Couldn't do my job using Win98.
Also MS try to force everyone to upgrade by creating software that require newer windows, lack of support and updates among several other things. So most people have no choice and sooner or later just have to upgrade anyway. Also others stop producing software and drivers for old windows version so in your case by using Win98 you might get a bit better performance in the expense of lack of functionality because there is no drivers available for some components. But as i said if it works for you that's your choice and shouldn't try to tell you otherwise.

[Ebony Ivory]

The thing is, I can do my job(s) incredibly well with Win98, and I'm at a loss to see what XP (or Vista) adds to the party. Consider:

1: MS C/C++, ML, LINK, etc., all run fine under DOS 8 (with the help of the Phar Lap DOS-Extender which one of my products uses), so I can build my Windows, DLL and DOS applications

2: PageMaker runs great, so I can write my documentation for my sofrware

3: CorelDRAW 9 lets me design web graphics, posters, etc

4: PhotoShop 7 gives me full control of my digital photographs, and optimised web graphics

5: Finale 2005 provides me with the support to write musical scores, band parts, and record rehearsal CDs for my theatre shows and jazz gigs

6: MapSource allows me to plan routes, exchange data and maps with my Garmin GPS units

7: Nero 6 performs my CD/DVD creation needs with aplomb

8: CoolEdit 2000 is a wonderful sound recorder and editor that works perfectly with all necessary sound formats

9: Opera 8.5 embodies the best web experience of any browser

Added to which I get the total backup facilities that are unique to a DOS-based boot up, and can take all the above - plus my (literally) hundreds of legacy DOS utilities and applications and all my working data around with me on a 2Gb single memory key or just 2 CD-ROMs.

In short, I can do both my jobs (programming and music) and support my leisure interests (photography, art, travel) with great ease. What could XP add to that, apart from the need for daily downloads (and prayers!)?

Brian

[Wiz]

In short, I can do both my jobs (programming and music) and support my leisure interests (photography, art, travel) with great ease. What could XP add to that, apart from the need for daily downloads (and prayers!)?
Brian

You can chose to use whatever OS you want since that is your choice. A lot of people find it a bit strange to run Win98 on a T43 for lot of reasons i won't mention here though. I'm one of them that find it strange to run Win98 on a T43, but that would be your decision.

But i just have to say that most of the programs you mention (if not all) run fine under XP and a few might have to be upgraded. So most of your list is not really a reason why you cannot upgrade Windows. When talking about the hundreds of legacy dos utilities i must say that's a whole lot......do you really use hundreds of dos utilites that won't run under XP and why would you need so many dos utilities? And is those utilities is so unique there is no other utilities that could replace them and run under XP? I would find it hard to even create a list of hundreds known dos utilites. And if that list should only include dos utilites that won't run under XP and is so uniqe there is no other tool to replace them i think that would be close to impossible. I know that you created a lot of those utilites by your self, but come one....hundreds that you cannot live without?

When talking about the need of daily updates for XP you should stick to the fact and not make it worse then it is. No one need daily updates for XP and i'm pretty sure you know that as well. When talking about dailly updates and prayers that make it sound like you don't really know what XP is all about. A lot of people including me find XP to work really good and stable and i cannot talk for everyone else, but i'm pretty sure that most people would find XP to be a lot more stable then Win98. So i think that prayers statement of your would fit Win98 better.

As i said before it's your decision so you don't have to explain, but i bet a lot would be curious to know what those hundres of utilities actually do since it's a "must have" for you? I guess your arguments so far doesn't really make people understand why you are stuck at Win98.

[JaneL]

OK, guys, enough. See item #6 in the FAQ. We are NOT going to have an OS war here.

Read the FAQ; read the rules; follow them.

[Ebony Ivory]

OK, guys, enough. See item #6 in the FAQ. We are NOT going to have an OS war here.

Read the FAQ; read the rules; follow them.

I don't think there's a war here - I was simply asking whether anyone else used Win98, and in response to the bemused queries from some respondents, explaining why I want this OS instead of XP. I certainly don't feel any flame heat, nor do I feel I've generated any!

And actually, my specific query was with respect to shutdown options - I'd like to return to DOS, rather than a turned-off machine, at the end of a Windows session!

Brian

[Wiz]

I neither feel it's a war about OS.....at least not yet, but i guess me among maybe some others turned this into a discussion that is not related to your question in the first place Ebony Ivory. Sorry about that and i guess nonny just try to prevent this from becoming a war.

Hope you find a solution for your shutdown issue Ebony Ivory.

[Ebony Ivory]

I neither feel it's a war about OS.....at least not yet, but i guess me among maybe some others turned this into a discussion that is not related to your question in the first place Ebony Ivory. Sorry about that and i guess nonny just try to prevent this from becoming a war.

Hope you find a solution for your shutdown issue Ebony Ivory.

My "solution", for now, is to put up with a reboot at the end of a Windows session - at least it's quick on the T43 (and running Win98's version of MS-DOS!), requiring a total of only 14 seconds or so until I get control back to my C:\ prompt ...

BTW, I now have the network running fine too, along with USB, full function video, sound, etc. All that's missing is WiFi (though I have some USB WiFi dongles that work perfectly well until I crack this last issue) - oh, and I'm not bothering with fingerprints for now - even on my other (HP) laptop which is still running XP.

So it's (un)official: the Thinkpad T43 (2668-92U) appears to support Windows 98SE!

Brian

[Wiz]

BTW, I now have the network running fine too, along with USB, full function video, sound, etc. All that's missing is WiFi (though I have some USB WiFi dongles that work perfectly well until I crack this last issue) - oh, and I'm not bothering with fingerprints for now - even on my other (HP) laptop which is still running XP.
Brian

The WiFi issue might be hard to crack. I tried to see if i could find any mini pci card that support a/b/g and also drivers available for win98. That's not easy to find and also if you use a unauthorized card you will have to fix that 1802 issue as well. For the Intel 2915abg i would be surprised if you find a driver for Win98, but might be able to find another mini pci card that support a/b/g and also with drivers for win98. If you can live with 802.11b there is some available like the Cisco 350 mini pci, but not sure if that one will require a a fix for 1802 as well on a T43.

btw is USB working at USB 2.0 speed under Win98? If not i would think that a PCMCIA wlan card would give you better wireless speed then a USB adapter.

[lord jim]

I was going to post T43 problem installing WIN98SE, but here somene is running it on T43.
I tried to install to first primary partition from CD and went as far as "running windows for the firs time" and then tha message from Bill ( Gates) "Windows cannot initialize due to insufficient memory, please quit some TSR,s and start again." I modified system.ini to restrict amount of RAM to windows to 738Mb. ( I have heard 98 has problem with more than 1Gb of RAM. My T43 has currently 1.5Gb. of RAM. Evidently that did not solved the problem, oherwise I will not be posting. Any idea, advice greatly appreciated.
Thanks in dvance.

[Ebony Ivory]

Wiz, thanks for your comments. As I have these D-Link USB/Wifi dongles (B/G), I'm already sorted for wireless - plus they work on my older Compaq laptops too - but if I can get the built-in WiFi to work, it'll be one less toy to put in the carry bag!

Lord Jim, having received my T43 a month ago (a US-model, 2668-92U), I dutifully booted its pre-installed XP, downloaded my many megabyts of updates from Micro$oft, and then created a set of system restore CDs (about 6 of them), before inserting my Win98-booting CD-ROM, and playing with "FDISK" to restore the hard disk to a single, unpartitioned space.

Next, I added a FAT16 (yes, old-style) Primary DOS partition, for my "C:" drive, limited to a mere 2045Mb. I then added an Extended DOS partition, and split it into logical drives D:, E:, F: (all 8188Mb), G: (32,765Mb) and H: (the 24,000Mb or so left over). The reasons for 8188 and 32765, is that these are the break-points between cluster sizes (using the maximum FAT list before doubling allocation unit size and halving the table size).

I install Win98 on D:, but boot to C: (in non-GUI mode, ie as MS-DOS 8 ). This lets me reformat and reinstall D: (Windows 98 ) from a ZIP file, or reinstall C: (the boot disk and all my source files and documentation) from a CD.

It just worked: no complaints from the T43, and once I'd found the correct drivers (from ATI/Radeon, IBM/Lenovo and BroadCom), it was a cinch. I had to edit some .INF files to convince my T43 that its ATI Radeon X300 was handled by the generic X300 driver, but once I'd done this, it's worked perfectly.

If you need my INF files (which will work with factory-downloaded driver files), or more precise hints, please let me know.

Brian

[lord jim]

Thanks for reply Brian.
Well what I did, I moved XP partition away from beginning of HDD to make room for another primary, size a bit less than 2GB. and set is as FAT16, besides XP partition(NFSF) my drive has extended of course with logical FAT32, NTFS, and FAT16. What comes next I made primary FAT16 bootable and hide primary XP ( Boot Magic)
and booted 98SE installation disk.
Anyway it only got me to as I said to the point running windows for the first time and not enough memory to initialize windows error. I sure can boot DOS to this partition and access c:(FAT16), d:(FAT32), e:(FAT16). Of course there is hidden NTFS partition and logical NTFS drive, but simply cannot see them by DOS or 98, so I don't think this would be my problem.
I somehow do not understand the reason to install 98SE on drive d: and than start it I guess from DOS not c:, but that seems to me should have no effect on initialization of 98SE., just having choice to start 98SE manually or some other application from DOS, I suppose.
Bottom line I would certainly welcome some guidance or compare your ini files to mine. Still I try to understand how 98 booting clean its own partition with 738MB of RAM complains about not enough memory. Seems Bill (Gates) is lying one way or another. Needless to say I tried the installation not once or twice with always freshly reformatted partition.

[Ebony Ivory]

The main reason I installed Win98 on D: is historical. When I first started using Win95, I was deeply into Win3.1 development, and didn't want the "new" version screwing up my setup. I hit on the idea of installing Win95 on D:, leaving my C: drive as a clean Win3.1/DOS setup. The DOS that came with Win95 (DOS 7) fully supported in Win3.1 as well as Win95.

Having done the above, I realised another great thing: all the files with long names (as in "This one is a real pain to type (version 1).doc.txt") were stuck on D:, and my entire C: drive still used only 8.3 names. This is what made my current (and still the best-in-the-industry! ) backup scheme so good. So I kept to this scheme when finally being forced to move up to Win98 ...

... My C: drive can be ZIPped onto a single CD, and contains all my program source files, music/MIDI files, and other important documents, as well as the basic boot files for Win98 (IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM). I can boot into non-GUI DOS 8 (the MS-DOS from Win98), reformat my C: drive, then UNZIP all the files I want from a bootable CD.

My D: drive (which contains all the files with long file names) needs at bit more TLC, but I've found that if you UNZIP the Windows folder ignoring all files with long file names, it still runs OK, and once running, you can UNZIP the remaining files with their long names.

It was the latter discovery that made me realise I can keep my entire development and working environment on (originally) one CD, and now 2: to reinstall on a machine that has gone horribly pear-shaped, I can even do:

Code: Select all

1. Boot from CD, and run FDISK to repartition hard drive

2. Add FAT16 primary DOS partion (C:, 2045 MB)

3. Add Extended DOS partition, and split into:

    D: (Say) 8188 MB for Windows 98

    E: (Say) 8188 MB for an on-stream backup of everything

    F: (Say) 8188 MB for GARMIN GPS data and other large data sets

    G: (Say) 32765 MB for digital photos

    H: The rest - in my cased, 24000 MB or so

4. Format C:, and UNZIP all my primary files onto it

5: Format D:, and UNZIP short-file-name Win98 files onto it

6: Run Win98, and UNZIP all long-file-name files onto it

7: Reinstall all missing data on E:, F: and G: across the network or
    from backup media

The great thing is that the above lets me transfer my entire computing world onto a new (or reformatted) machine as an ultimate backup, and has let me (for example) start using my new Thinkpad T43 as if I've been using it for years. All I had to do was locate and install a few new device drivers.

And now that I can burn DVDs too, I can literally carry my entire setup - data files, source files, music files, text file - everything, on a single disk that costs only a few pence, and, in the unfortunate event of my T43 being stolen, could reinstate me on a new one within a few minutes of opening the box.

And that's why I stick with Win98!

Brian

[lord jim]

O.K. I see your reason. It make sense.
My reason for 98 was basically software compatibility. When my T22 was stolen a year ago, I had to knock IBM door to find out that IBM is gone and Lenovo ??? is here. So now I owe T43, no regrets here, still 98 did not wanted to install and I ended up fetching couple of hundred dollars, mostly for pcAnywhere and Virtual CD/DVD. I’ve got used to XP I guess, yet XP is not compatible with my TI-89 software and limping with SCASI Adaptec PCMCIA card and HP scanner drivers, what I need to use with my HP scanner , from the old good days before USB.
Bucking up, these days I use original 80GB HDD in UltraSlim bay and Ghost 2003 + ZipBackup to CD for data, I don’t intend to run out of space for quite some time yet.
Well, I still would like to get 98 going on this machine.
Hope you help me out to straighten out this nasty “not enough memory to run windows” error during initialization.

[Ebony Ivory]

Well, I still would like to get 98 going on this machine.
Hope you help me out to straighten out this nasty “not enough memory to run windows” error during initialization.

Well, this bit might be easy, after yesterday!

I ordered, and installed, a 512Mb module from Lenovo, to bring my lovely T43 up to 1Gb of RAM. It went in easily, and was instantly recognised by BIOS and also my 32-bit DOS programs: I could run DOS-PROLOG with a heap of over 1,000 million bytes!

But then I tried running my carefully-honed Windows 98 setup. Bang! Blue Screen of Death - not even a polite message.

After much rummaging round on the web, I've discovered that Win98 doesn't like more than 512Mb of RAM, and gets its "virtual cache" in a twist if you add more.

Luckily, there are fixes on the Microsoft website and elsewhere on the web, but what it boils down to is adding lines to SYSTEM.INI to limit Window 98 from accessing more than an agreed amount of RAM for its virtual cache.

I now have Win98 working again, but have not yet finished playing with the settings. I'll get there in the end!

Brian

[lord jim]

Big mistake Brian, don’t take it personal, when I ordered my T43 I ordered right away 1 GB extra module to bring it up to 1.5GB, reason for this, If I want to max RAM all I need another 1GB module and I have 512MB waste as by original Lenovo spec for T43.
I have System.ini modified for line MaxPhysPage=30000 added in [386Enh] section what restricts windows to 768Mb. Exactly what I have had on my T22; 512 + 256.
O.K. I try to restrict it to 512 and see if I can get it to run

[Ebony Ivory]

Big mistake Brian, don’t take it personal, when I ordered my T43 I ordered right away 1 GB extra module to bring it up to 1.5GB, reason for this, If I want to max RAM all I need another 1GB module and I have 512MB waste as by original Lenovo spec for T43.
I have System.ini modified for line MaxPhysPage=30000 added in [386Enh] section what restricts windows to 768Mb. Exactly what I have had on my T22; 512 + 256.
O.K. I try to restrict it to 512 and see if I can get it to run

I know that I'll have to bin these modules if I ever want 2Gb, but my figuring is that by then I'll want to have another laptop anyway. Bearing in mind I still do most my day-to-day work on an HP "Kayak" workstation with - ooh err - 256Mb RAM and a 1GHz PIII, the 1 gig I now have on the T43 is way more than I need for most things.

I'll try your setting (30000) to see how it pans out for me!

Brian