>hi, i am tring to play older games which are able to run on windows 98 to run
>in virtual machine with windows xp as guest.
>
>Games SACRED
>it has low specs eg.
>1gb processor
>256 mb ram
>1gb harddrive
>installed virtual machine additions on guest
>install directx9 on guest
>
>it get error message
>Sacred.exe has encounter a problem
>select send and don't send
>
>how do i solve this problem and get this game running

> hi, i am tring to play older games which are able to run on windows
> 98 to run
> in virtual machine with windows xp as guest.
>
> Games SACRED
> it has low specs eg.
> 1gb processor
> 256 mb ram
> 1gb harddrive
> installed virtual machine additions on guest
> install directx9 on guest
>
> it get error message
> Sacred.exe has encounter a problem
> select send and don't send
>
> how do i solve this problem and get this game running

> "oliver" wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> hi, i am tring to play older games which are able to run on windows 98 to
>> run
>> in virtual machine with windows xp as guest.
>>
>> Games SACRED
>> it has low specs eg.
>> 1gb processor
>> 256 mb ram
>> 1gb harddrive
>> installed virtual machine additions on guest
>> install directx9 on guest
>>
>> it get error message
>> Sacred.exe has encounter a problem
>> select send and don't send
>>
>> how do i solve this problem and get this game running
>
>
> The emulated hardware within a VM is very minimal. Not very usable for
> playing games. You might want to look into multibooting to install
> Windows 98 in a different partition and then select which OS to load when
> you power up.

> install directx9 on guest

> Win98 can no longer be installed on most current mobos. Anyway, its
> 512mb memory limitation precludes use in machines that need 1GB and
> up for OSs like Vista.

> "Colin Barnhorst" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> Win98 can no longer be installed on most current mobos. Anyway, its
>> 512mb memory limitation precludes use in machines that need 1GB and up
>> for OSs like Vista.
>
>
> Which mobos would those be? Itaniums (later versions) cannot run 32-bit
> operating systems but Intel with EMT64 and AMD 64/Opteron can. Even the
> Core Duo support EMT64 so it can run in 32- or 64-bit mode. The Itaniums
> are true 64-bit processors while EMT64 and x64 are 32-bit processors that
> added the 64-bit extensions. As I recall for Windows 98, it did require
> availability of the A20 address line (or the BIOS to emulate it). So you
> would have to look in the BIOS to see if A20 is supported (although it not
> listed doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't supported since everyone had
> it enabled by default); see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/73713.
> Remember that Windows 98 was not a true 32-bit OS. It has a 16- and
> 32-bit kernel and it still ran okay on 32-bit hardware.
>
> Why would having, say, 4GB of system RAM preclude an OS from recognizing
> up to whatever is its limit in addressing despite how many address lines
> were available in the hardware? Windows 9x/ME can handle up to 2GB of
> system RAM. The problem that crops up when more than 512MB is installed
> is noted at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253912/en-us. Whether you set
> a max size for Vcache or you limit the amount of system RAM that Windows
> 98 can use does not preclude you from running Windows 98 on a host with
> 512MB, or more.
>
> Also, the OP said they were still going to run Windows XP x64 as the host
> OS and run Windows 98 within a VM in Virtual PC. Since you can limit the
> memory allocated to a VM and since the emulated hardware in a VM is
> archaic, it seems quite likely that the OP could run Windows 98 in a VM.
> While VPC can run as an application in 32- and 64-bit operating systems, I
> wasn't aware that it would emulate 64-bit hardware in a *guest* OS.
> Although the OP would have emulated 32-bit hardware in the VM and could
> limit the max memory allocated to that VM (if they didn't want to do the
> limitations in the configuration of the OS), a VM still sucks for playing
> many games, especially since there is no 3D video support in the emulated
> hardware. I haven't played the SACRED game but it is not a simple card
> playing game.

> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> All you have to do is look at the current consumer mobos offered by Asus,
>> MSI, and others. Many have the notice about Win98. Here is a typical
>> example. Look down the page at the "MSI reminds you..."
>> http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=P6N_SLI_Platinum&class=mb
>> It is a "limitation" of many newer chipsets; in this case, the nVidia
>> 650i chipset.
>
>
> Oh, a crippled northbridge implementation due to lack of a chipset driver.
> After looking at the specs for the 650i SLI and 650i Ultra chips, I don't
> see a physical limitation that would prevent it from being used with
> Windows 98. The real limitation is imposed by nVidia in that they won't
> provide a driver package for some of their chipsets for the older
> operating systems. Using their download site, I could not find an nVidia
> chipset driver download for their 650i for Windows 9x/ME/NT4. I thought
> they had a section where you found the old chipset drivers for the old
> unsupported operating systems but then the 650i got released after the
> cutoff for support of these older operating systems (650i was introduced
> Nov 2006 and WinME got discontinued in Dec 2003 for maintstream support
> and Jul 2006 for extended support). So, yep, you were right that for lack
> of the chipset drivers then the older operating systems that are no longer
> supported by the chipset maker are unusable on the true hardware platform.
> The hardware might do it but there isn't a chipset driver to do it.
>
> So would the mobo's actual chipset that is crippled due to lack of a
> driver for use with Windows 98 also preclude a user from running Windows
> 98 inside a VM in Virtual PC with its emulated hardware? The emulated
> mobo's chipset in the VM is the old Intel 82443BX. Seems like the OP can
> do what they wanted in running the Windows 98 and their game inside a VM
> (provided the emulated hardware meets minimal system requirements for the
> game).

> All you have to do is look at the current consumer mobos offered by
> Asus, MSI, and others. Many have the notice about Win98. Here is a
> typical example. Look down the page at the "MSI reminds you..."
> http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=P6N_SLI_Platinum&class=mb
> It is a "limitation" of many newer chipsets; in this case, the
> nVidia 650i chipset.

> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> You're the one who brought up multibooting. Multibooting Win98 on modern
>> mobos is what I indicated is not always possible. If you are using
>> "multbooting" to refer to running a vm you are again using the wrong
>> terminology.
>
> Yes, I did mention "You might want to look into multibooting". The vague
> description of the OP's hardware doesn't provide the details to know WHAT
> his platform will support. Other than "low specs" and with what was
> described for hardware, I suspect it is more likely than not that the OP
> can run Windows 98 on the hardware and not bother with using a VM.
>
> Thanks for the heads up on mobos that might not support Windows 98. It
> seems the real problem is not that the hardware won't support an old OS
> but rather that the chipset maker won't provide a driver for the old OS.
>
> I said it might run on the real hardware (by using multibooting). You
> said it might not. Without the details for the hardware, can't tell what
> might work. The VM option *might* be the only solution to the OP, might
> not. Since the OP is asking about games, and *if* his hardware supports
> running Windows 98 (for the game), he might enjoy his gaming experience
> more by using multibooting than in a slow VM with a limited set of
> emulated hardware. Right now, we're just tossing darts all over the board
> in a dark room hoping one of them might stick.

> You're the one who brought up multibooting. Multibooting Win98 on
> modern mobos is what I indicated is not always possible. If you are
> using "multbooting" to refer to running a vm you are again using the
> wrong terminology.

> So would the mobo's actual chipset that is crippled due to lack of a
> driver for use with Windows 98 also preclude a user from running Windows
> 98 inside a VM in Virtual PC with its emulated hardware?
> The emulated mobo's chipset in the VM is the old Intel 82443BX.
> Seems like the OP can do what they wanted in running the Windows 98 and
> their game inside a VM (provided the emulated hardware meets minimal
> system requirements for the game).

> All of the Win98 games I have seen do work fine in a vm with the
> exception of any that require special hardware. In point of fact,
> virtualization is not emulation. I agree that a PC emulator would
> be slower than running Win98 on metal, but virtualization is not the
> same as emulation and is much closer to native speeds (see:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2004/10/18/243821.aspx).

> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> All of the Win98 games I have seen do work fine in a vm with the
>> exception of any that require special hardware. In point of fact,
>> virtualization is not emulation. I agree that a PC emulator would be
>> slower than running Win98 on metal, but virtualization is not the same as
>> emulation and is much closer to native speeds (see:
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2004/10/18/243821.aspx).
>
>
> In Virtual PC, the chipset, video card, and several other hardware objects
> are NOT anything that I have in my real hardware platform. On my real
> hardware, there is no 824437BX chipset as used within a VM. My real BIOS
> version is newer in date and version. There isn't an S3 Trio video card
> in any of my hosts but there is an emulated one inside a VM. The nVidia
> busmaster driver is used by the host OS versus the Intel one in the guest
> OS. I have the nVidia onboard NIC and not the emulated Intel NIC in the
> VM. The CPU is about the only non-emulated hardware in the VM which is
> just enough to qualify VPC as using native virtualization
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization) but that doesn't bring in
> all the real hardware into the VM. The blog you mentioned wants to define
> virtualization (versus emulation) as "Emulation involves providing the
> functionality of your target processor completely in software." That
> definition focuses only on the CPU. What CPU is identified in a VM
> running a non-Windows OS? A 32-bit Pentium 4, isn't it? Your x64
> processor won't show up inside the guest OS. The sound is emulated. The
> video is emulated (important to the OP wanting to play games). The NIC is
> emulated.
>
> Most places that I see describing how VPC works will saying something like
> "Virtual PC emulates a standard PC and its associated hardware"
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_PC). How many users of VPC actually
> have the same "standard PC" as the hardware for the host OS that is listed
> within the guest OS? Even Microsoft describes emulated hardware, as in
> "only Virtual PC provides an emulated sound card"
> (http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/4/d/14d17804-1659-435d-bc11-657a6da308c0/VSvsVPC.doc,
> page 9). What do you call having hardware simulated in a VM that doesn't
> exist in real hardware? Does virtualization of the CPU obviate the
> emulation of the rest of the hardware? Maybe if you have, say, the AMD
> x64 in the Windsor line with its hardware-assisted virtualization (or VT
> Technology) then maybe you get less emulated (simulated) hardware in the
> VM.

>hi, i am tring to play older games which are able to run on windows 98 to run
>in virtual machine with windows xp as guest.
>
>Games SACRED
>it has low specs eg.
>1gb processor
>256 mb ram
>1gb harddrive
>installed virtual machine additions on guest
>install directx9 on guest
>
>it get error message
>Sacred.exe has encounter a problem
>select send and don't send
>
>how do i solve this problem and get this game running

> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> All of the Win98 games I have seen do work fine in a vm with the
>> exception of any that require special hardware. In point of fact,
>> virtualization is not emulation. I agree that a PC emulator would be
>> slower than running Win98 on metal, but virtualization is not the same as
>> emulation and is much closer to native speeds (see:
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2004/10/18/243821.aspx).
>
>
> In Virtual PC, the chipset, video card, and several other hardware objects
> are NOT anything that I have in my real hardware platform. On my real
> hardware, there is no 824437BX chipset as used within a VM. My real BIOS
> version is newer in date and version. There isn't an S3 Trio video card
> in any of my hosts but there is an emulated one inside a VM. The nVidia
> busmaster driver is used by the host OS versus the Intel one in the guest
> OS. I have the nVidia onboard NIC and not the emulated Intel NIC in the
> VM. The CPU is about the only non-emulated hardware in the VM which is
> just enough to qualify VPC as using native virtualization
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization) but that doesn't bring in
> all the real hardware into the VM. The blog you mentioned wants to define
> virtualization (versus emulation) as "Emulation involves providing the
> functionality of your target processor completely in software." That
> definition focuses only on the CPU. What CPU is identified in a VM
> running a non-Windows OS? A 32-bit Pentium 4, isn't it? Your x64
> processor won't show up inside the guest OS. The sound is emulated. The
> video is emulated (important to the OP wanting to play games). The NIC is
> emulated.
>
> Most places that I see describing how VPC works will saying something like
> "Virtual PC emulates a standard PC and its associated hardware"
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_PC). How many users of VPC actually
> have the same "standard PC" as the hardware for the host OS that is listed
> within the guest OS? Even Microsoft describes emulated hardware, as in
> "only Virtual PC provides an emulated sound card"
> (http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/4/d/14d17804-1659-435d-bc11-657a6da308c0/VSvsVPC.doc,
> page 9). What do you call having hardware simulated in a VM that doesn't
> exist in real hardware? Does virtualization of the CPU obviate the
> emulation of the rest of the hardware? Maybe if you have, say, the AMD
> x64 in the Windsor line with its hardware-assisted virtualization (or VT
> Technology) then maybe you get less emulated (simulated) hardware in the
> VM.