I have to ask again, trying to installing Win98.

[Nelson37]

Sumbitch, that's right, "boot sector protection" or something similar can cause this.

When you choose option 1, Install and format, describe EXACTLY what happens, in detail, after that.

The AMD patch I mentioned might also be needed. Don't remember that it caused this error, though. It was a problem during installation, seems like it would just continously reboot at a certain point without the patch. It did cover CPU in your range.

Might be worth doing the Fdisk and Format on another PC, not generally recommended but it almost sounds like your partition is not being created.

After the Fdisk, can you run it again and verify that a single partition has been created, and that it is marked as Active? I don't think the old Fdisk automatically made it active.

[capman21]

Yeah, I can verify that a partition has been created, and is active showing FAT32. When I select install and format, after a few seconds it comes up with "wrong system info." The files and folders that it is showing are the cabs, drivers, setup.exe, etc.

[bevills1]

Have you tried formatting the drive using the "Format c: /s" command first as suggested in kosz 5/20 post which transfers the system files to the drive? This shouldn't be necessary but may help resolve the problem in this strange case. IMO the "wrong system info" and "can't run in dos" errors still indicate it thinks it's a Windows disk and should continue to fail regardless of what's tried. Obtaining a good Windows install disk is likely the only option.

[handyguy]

Yes, turn off any bios boot protection stuff so it can write a new boot sector.

[Ai Haibara]

...Wait.

I could be wrong, but I always thought Microsoft didn't add support for FAT32 to the Win9X line until 98 Second Edition/ME. capman21, are you trying to install from an original Win98 (Win98 Gold/First Edition) CD? It may be expecting to find a FAT16 drive, in that case.

I'm not sure what the exact difference between FAT16 and FAT32 is; if it is looking for a FAT16 drive, it could be finding enough of the FAT setup to see that it is FAT, but not finding the boot/system setup exactly the way it wants it to be.

But, as I mentioned above, I'm probably wrong. :/

[bevills1]

The last Windows version to use FAT16 was 3.1 if memory serves. Later versions can see FAT16, but 95 through Me format as FAT32 while NT and later gives choice to format as FAT32 or NTFS.

[buttzilla]

Is ther any chance the disk you have is defective?`Is it a copy or ist it an original 98 disk. Even so it could still have problems because of scratches or bad handling.

[Ai Haibara]

The last Windows version to use FAT16 was 3.1 if memory serves. Later versions can see FAT16, but 95 through Me format as FAT32 while NT and later gives choice to format as FAT32 or NTFS.

Okay, I can admit when I'm wrong. I guess what I was remembering was wondering about the time 98SE/ME came out whether or not I should change our drives to FAT32.

Apparently, though, according to this page: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/154997 , it wasn't implemented until the OSR2 version of Win95. I notice it also mentions you have to tell FDISK to enable large drive support if you're formatting a drive over 512MB, but capman21's probably done that, too.

[capman21]

The disc is working, and it is free of scratches, etc. This is a real stumper isnt it.

[nic2k4]

The problem is you can't rely on the error messages, sometimes a situation arise that the programmers didn't expect when they devised the error handler. Couple things to check, is the jumper set right on the drive? WD have no jumper when the drive is alone on the cable. If the drive is not alone, change it so it is. Some mix of drives still cause problems. If it still doesn't work, change your cable... Consider forcing the drive into a lower DMA mode, WD has a utility to do that. Come to think of it why are you changing the OS to 98, were you having trouble with XP? If so, take a close look at the capacitors on the MB, are any leaking around the top or bottom, is the top of the caps flat or bulging? Is this a VIA chipset board?

[Nelson37]

Is this by any chance a Dell or other OEM installation disk, as opposed to a standard Microsoft installation disk? Being used on a PC not from the original manufacturer, or substantially different from the original?

The original menus you listed suggest this, the "wrong system info" points strongly at this being the problem.

If that is the case, I don't think it can be made to work without some significant hacking. Am looking into this type of installation myself.

[bevills1]

Nelson37 may have found the answer. I have no experience with disks from Dell, HP and others and have only used retail or OEM Windows disks. If Nelson37 is correct, then that explains the options given that I've never seen as well as the error messages. I think Nelson37 is correct also that this type disk will not work.

[handyguy]

I used a Dell XP disk on a Compaq this year & it worked fine. It does use bios activation, however, so you probably couldn't use a W98 disk on a Dell. Just a guess.

[bevills1]

Such disk may work on HP and other bios activated systems too but likely won't work on new system like OP's system since there's no bios from which to activate. However, Win98 disk on Dell may well work because I nstalled Win2k on Compaq laptop by removing all partitions, recreating partitions and doing fresh install.

[Patricks]

1) Is Capman21's HD failing ?
2) Any failing HD may show an apparently good file table until
a sustained read/write operation ...
3) I suggest that Capman21 should first ensure that the HD
is in good condition (his 40 GB drive would be, I guess, 6 or
7 years of age) by running the disk diagnostic, downloadable
from the HD manufacturer's web site.

[Bjs]

Is this by any chance a Dell or other OEM installation disk, as opposed to a standard Microsoft installation disk? Being used on a PC not from the original manufacturer, or substantially different from the original?

The original menus you listed suggest this, the "wrong system info" points strongly at this being the problem.

If that is the case, I don't think it can be made to work without some significant hacking. Am looking into this type of installation myself.

----

Did I not ask this before in an earlier reply ... YES ... I did .

As for the conversion from , say dell only install to full retail , yes , it can be done ... done it , but will not supply how to go about it .