I was defending them? :D

Because literally no one runs Win 98SE (and Win 98 itself was way different, and there were incompatibility issues, if you didn't live through that, I did) anymore in anything but a VM. There's more value in making sure the games install and run on new machines with new OSes, crap they install on Win XP and that's 10 years old!

If you just must have the game running on Win 98, can find drivers for your old hardware, a patch for the games that are broken on release, and a DirectX version that doesn't crash the SOB, then I'd really suggest physical media. Most old games can be had for really cheap on eBay (really exclusive titles like SS2 excluded).

For the information of those displaying a love of derision, the Microsoft servers still host Windows Update for the 9x operating systems and there are rather active open source projects based around keeping it viable.Are you using KernelEx and associated on 98 to allow running 2000/XP programs? Windows preceding XP are DOS kernel versus NT kernel based operating systems, and thus there naturally should be issues if no compatibility layer is present in the home operating system. KernelEx is supposed to deal with this issue allowing forward compatibility for programs in general. If it's failing you, you may wish to bring it up with the KernelEx maintainers.

And I've never had any issue with GOG Installer on Vista or 7. Occasional issues with the actual game relative to OS or hardware sure, Installers no.

Any DOS kernel version of Windows is pointless in a VM as DirectX and Direct3D in particular are only supported for NT kernel Windows in all current VM software. The favored solution is DOS kernel Windows in DOSBOX, which is a EMULATOR and largely unrelated to a VIRTUAL MACHINE, provided you don't want to try your hand at WinE in Linux, modifying it to run natively, or running 9x/ME natively and using the Open Source upgrade packages linked above.

You may have noticed these issues were emphasized in the recent DOSBOX GOG interview in regards to a question about what was the hardest to port.

Strictly speaking, it's preceding Win2k in the non-NT branch.

I'm not sure if I'm horrified or impressed that somebody would be doing that to keep Win 9x machines running.

Why shouldn't they? They paid good money for the hardware and the OS and backwards compatibility into the era is very lacking, so why not get the most out of it?

If you want something really wild look up AmigaOS 4 and the AmigaOne line of computers made by Hyperion Entertainment. Better yet query either in YouTube.

Or if you looked it up you'd discover IBM was petitioned to release the OS/2 source code to allow maintainers to keep it going in 2005 and 2007, and were declined both times. Note Microsoft would have to release their IP rights in addition to IBM and other IP holders in order to release OS/2 in the free and clear. Of course the other angle is it's actively maintained otherwise.

Options are good. I believe the core Linux philosophy that puts the customer in control is best, and that doesn't mean the customer shouldn't be able to chose options other then Linux if they desire. That said I would tend to advise against letting a DOS kernel OS on the Internet, as it's just needlessly asking for trouble.

Options are good, but if you look at some of those screenshots, they're obviously running programs online. Applications of that era tend to run a lot better under Wine than under Windows. Or better yet, just run Win 9x under emulation. At some point the concern over replacing hardware overshadows any advantage to running it old school.

I'm impressed. Thanx to hints on www.msfn.org/ I was able to instal Win98SE on my regular machine as second OS (bypassing large RAM & SATA problems) and run Archimedean Dynasty with sound and 3dfx acceleration :-D

You're right, of course, but a lot of older games supported direct software rendering, those should work fine in a VM with Win 98SE. As you've demonstrated, people have had this bug for awhile so there's a couple options. None of them are easy, but finding working hardware and drivers for said hardware is a challenge at this point (how many working 3.5 inch drives do you have left? because I have 1, that might work if I plugged it in, not sure).

VMs don't do everything yet, but if you look at what we have today compared to even 2 years ago, we're coming along really well (2 years ago, there was no DirectX support in any VM software that I knew of, VirtualBox added it and wham, now everyone is working on it - no I don't want to go into the what is WINE debate again, so if you count that as a VM, then they were the only ones that worked worth a damn).

Wait for a WINBox emulator or build a Win9x-capable machine, then....

The whole point of GOG is that you never had to do that in the first place.

Your stated issues (all of which I agree with) are due to how GOG set it up though, not because of the installer (InnoSetup). So, in a way, they are "limitations set by GOG", even if some may not have been meant to act as limitations. Granted, there are supposedly more capable installers out there, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call InnoSetup "crappy".

This thread is long since dead. It was necroed by a butthurt 9x fan.

So it is. I need to learn to look at timestamps. Damn you, beejayp.

GOG needs an autolock feature on threads that have been inactive for a month. It works quite well on other forums.

After all, it does seem somewhat unlikely that togermano will show up again and mark one of these posts as a solution.