Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
zox

Is there limit on CPU MHZ for Win98?

Recommended Posts

zox

My friend wants to install Win98 on newer PC with Athlon XP 2200+Is it possible?What about Pentium 4?I know in the past that Win98 was limited sort of with RAM allocation not being larger than 512Mb or something like that (my memory is bad) forgive my ignorance.There probably is some limitation to what CPU you can isntall it, being the older system or there is no limitation?Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James M. Fisher

No upper CPU limit for Windows (any version).I have had 95 & 98 running on an AMD Athlon XP 2000+.At work, on a P4 we have 98 running fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
b2cm

I recall Windows 95 requiring a patch for K62/3 processors, involving processor frequency and timing issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
epp_b

James, don't be so quick to make that statement. Win98 *does* have a set memory limit at 512 MB. CPU speed isn't a known limit, really, but there does come a point at which the CPU processes instructions thrown at it too quickly for Win98 keep up.A friend of mine tried running Win98 on a P4 2.66 Ghz...that was a no, no. Things kept crashing because the CPU was simply too fast for 98.So, yes, I would say that there is an unnoficial limit. What the exact limit is, I am not sure of. I think an Athlon XP 2200+ would probably be borderline. I have a 1800+ running Win98 just fine (abeit, it is one of those ECS "factory-overclocked" jobs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grasshopper

I would think that if the speed you wanted got high enough, the "other stuff" that came with the mobo would conflict with Win9x, also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James M. Fisher
James, don't be so quick to make that statement.  Win98 *does* have a set memory limit at 512 MB.  CPU speed isn't a known limit, really, but there does come a point at which the CPU processes instructions thrown at it too quickly for Win98 keep up.
I didn't even answer the RAM portion of the question, if you'll notice.Win98 can be tweaked to accept memory over 512MB. I have 768MB and didn't have a problem.Sorry if I am too quick for you. If you can give some hard facts (from a reputable source) on CPU and RAM limits, I will retract my earlier statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
epp_b
James, don't be so quick to make that statement.  Win98 *does* have a set memory limit at 512 MB.  CPU speed isn't a known limit, really, but there does come a point at which the CPU processes instructions thrown at it too quickly for Win98 keep up.
I didn't even answer the RAM portion of the question, if you'll notice.
Sorry, bad placement of sentances :D
Win98 can be tweaked to accept memory over 512MB. I have 768MB and didn't have a problem.
I was referring to Win98 "stock". With tweaking, you can do just about anything with anything ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cluttermagnet

I can report that I have been running 98SE on a P4 2.4GHz box for over a year now. Have it minimally tweaked up as per Fred Langa's overall scheme for eliminating memory leaks, taking charge of the swap file, and other such basics. I defrag and do some conservative registry cleaning regularly. I run ZA 2.6.362, an oldie version, and AVG 6.0 free version kept current. Also have run Adaware 6 (currently) and Spybot S&D (in the past). A very stable system and I can run it literally for weeks without it crashing. BTW it is well worth setting up the Windows-native Resource Meter. It is great and helps you head off a lot of bad situations before some miscreant program or java/javascript website gets a chance to run you out of resources. FWIW, it has a Gigabyte GA-8SG667 MB and has been very reliable. I'm still on my original 98SE install of over a year ago and have thus far managed not to cripple the OS to the point of wanting to take it out back and shoot it (the dreaded "Format C:"). :lol: Oh, BTW I'm running two 256M sticks of DDR RAM and it's plenty fast enough for me in average (non graphics intensive) use. Win98 lives on, for at least a while longer... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mattie

if you stick with some basic rules, 98 is a low maintenance os. ms have recently extended the win9x lifetime for another year or two ... it's just now that we have come to the stage that some software manufacturers do not support win9x any longer. examples needed? microsoft (office xp 2003), macromedia (mx series 2004), adobe acrobat 6, etc. ... and this list is getting longer and longer as we speak ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James M. Fisher
I'm still on my original 98SE install of over a year ago and have thus far managed not to cripple the OS to the point of wanting to take it out back and shoot it (the dreaded "Format C:").  ;)
That's quite a feat! :lol: There are those who recommend a "refresh" of Windows 98 every so often, but with good housekeeping from Day One, it shouldn't have to be that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James M. Fisher

No offense taken! However, that patch only relates to OEM 95 OSR2 and that particular AMD processor though, not any other version of Windows. The original question was Windows 98 and an Athlon XP CPU.I have spoken with some other knowledgable folks and they know of no known fast CPU problems with older Windows versions. The RAM issue, yes. CPU; no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
epp_b

But, like I said, I've talked to someone who *has* had problems with a CPU being too fast for Win98 . . . . And that's first-hand!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James M. Fisher
But, like I said, I've talked to someone who *has* had problems with a CPU being too fast for Win98  . . . . And that's first-hand!
I'm not disputing you, epp_b. I can't since I don't have all the facts and there are many variables involved as you can appreciate. I was simply reporting what 2 other long-time IT support folks have told me when I asked them about it.A Google search turned up next to nothing on this issue as well, but I am still open to hear about them! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zox

Ok, I did not want to cause war here, just needed informed opinion :)Thank you very much all as it seems to be ok to install Win98 on AthlonXP 2200+I will pass this info to my friend and will see how it goes :)Thanks again all of you for response ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peachy
Ok, I did not want to cause war here, just needed informed opinion :)Thank you very much all as it seems to be ok to install Win98 on AthlonXP 2200+I will pass this info to my friend and will see how it goes :)Thanks again all of you for response  B)
War? What war? :D Zox, Windows 98SE has no CPU/RAM limitations as far as I know. There may be certain DOS apps/games that run too quickly on a Pentium 4 faster than 2.0GHz but that would be unrelated to Windows 98. There are some software tools that can slow down the processor for these apps by adding extra code processing in the application environment and fool it into thinking it's in a slower system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
b2cm
B) Well, OK. I did read:
No upper CPU limit for Windows (any version).
So the Windows 95B version of Windows is an exception. :D And thanks for not taking any offense. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James M. Fisher
Ok, I did not want to cause war here, just needed informed opinion B)
No war, just a good 'discussion', IMO! And really, that's what these forums are here for: not to get just one person's opinion, but the input of many which, in turn, leads to a good thread. Thanks for starting it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James M. Fisher
B)  Well, OK. I did read:
No upper CPU limit for Windows (any version).
So the Windows 95B version of Windows is an exception. :) And thanks for not taking any offense. :D
This singular instance (only the OEM version of 95 SR2) was a 'limitation', but not an upper limit, so to speak. But once it's patched, there is (theoretically) no limit. :D Edited by James M. Fisher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
b2cm

As for my idea of limits or limitations, just plain Windows 95 software timing issues with K6-2 processors (that Microsoft acknowledged as processor frequency related) qualifies for either.But I can agree with your perspective. And I should suppose all operating systems have no CPU limits since they can be patched as the need arises, or as Peachy pointed out, one can use tools to correct apps-related timing problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James M. Fisher
And I should suppose all operating systems have no CPU limits since they can be patched as the need arises, ....
As I mentioned previously I have not found one yet by a Google search or heard of one first hand, nor experienced it myself.Really, does it matter?Usually the worry is "Is my cpu fast enough for this OS/software?" Longhorn's comin'! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
b2cm
Really, does it matter?
Sometimes. One may be able to afford a hardware upgrade but not the operating system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James M. Fisher
Really, does it matter?
Sometimes. One may be able to afford a hardware upgrade but not the operating system.
Not going to give me an inch, eh? I like that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeber

Sorry folks, but I had to split off the last few posts to this topic due to them rendering improperly. If yours was one that got removed, please feel free to repost, but we ask that you do not quote a post that includes another quote. The double quoting seems to be what's causing this problem. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed_P

Don'tcha just hate websites that only work correctly in IE. :thumbsup: :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crombie

Although you can have more than 512MB in Windows98 what would be the purpose? From the best that I can tell when I set this up for WinME it just allowed me to boot, and limited me to 512MB (both Aida32 and System Properties report 512MB whenever I run WinME). Even though the system is saying I have only 512MB is it secretly using that 1GB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed_P

Configure the extra RAM to be a RAMDrive when booting then allocate Windows SWAP/PAGE file to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pc-tecky

Some companies don't recommend win98 with anything much above 2 GHz.... (Where I remember seeing that at is no longer there because win98 isn't available - at least through that site.) That's most likely due to fact that moderm systems are capable of higher installed bases of RAM (many starting at 512MB anymore) and the lack of necessary drivers for the newer hardware. Besides, windows 2000 and windows XP have the bulk of things in common that are core to any OS. The rest of the extras not found in 2000, IMO, are eye candy and unnecessary bloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
epp_b

From my experience, Win98 maxes out at about 1 Ghz with 512 MB SD133 RAM and a 7200 RPM hard drive with a reasonably small cache. Anything faster will not make a noticeable difference.I run Win98SE on an AMD Duron 950 Mhz, and it is no faster than the Celeron 1.7 Ghz I used to have (note that Duron and Celeron are comparable chips as they both sport the same amount of L2 cache and similar FSB speeds). The Cel 1.7 based machine I had ran 256 MB of 266 Mhz DDR RAM. I run 512 MB of SD133 RAM in the Duron 950 computer (could compensate, I suppose).Just IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...