pointertovoid

I too looked (no too long) for W95b drivers for a Radeon 9600xt. Seems that Ati released Radeon drivers beginning with W98. Which does make sense, as my r9600xt is a dX9.0 hardware, and W95 only runs dX8.0a maximum (check your games!). ----- Faster than W98se: yes, W95b is much faster - but on small configurations. On a 4200/min 2,5" P1 120MHz 40MB, it makes a nice difference. But on a 7200/min 3,5" PIIIs 1400MHz 512MB, both a equally quick - I suppose hardware detection is the slowest task at bootup, not reading the disk nor making computations. You should consider Win Me as a replacement of 98se. It boots a bit faster, has much better Usb support, has built-in drivers for more hardware. Even better, as it had no successor, it suffers less from applications wanting to "modernize" Windows' dll. Defrag is much faster, and it has the Pinball game! Win Me runs all applications that 95 and 98 can. It takes a bit more Ram, but with 128MB+ it's at full throttle. Xp users may enjoy the automatic backup. Few euros at eBay. Also, W95 is more difficult to install than W98-Me. Not just for the disquette; W95 needs an awful lot of functional updates (forget security updates, it's pointless) which are difficult to find, are sometimes bugged, and must sometimes be installed in a precise order. ----- 512MB are more than enough for Xp alone. Xp runs at full speed with 256MB, according to my trials. Everything else are applications that take Ram space and boot time - beware of Open Office, Adobe Pdf Reader and some more: they all start together with Windows, slowing its bootup down and occupying the Ram permanently, just to be in the Ram when you call them. ----- Rather then Ram, I'd buy a faster HDD. It's the slowest part on mearly every computer, and much more so on a laptop. You can find a 7200/min with >80MB/s contiguous read for about 60 euros, capacity being around 250 or 300GB then. Flash disk is an option, but beware most of them are experimentally much slower than a mechanical disk. Look at 8kB read and write on Atto, not at random access time and contiguous read at Hd Tach.

And I will stick to using ie6.0sp1 because I will stick to W2k. So if someone can't write proper code for ie6, I won't read him. I also have Firefox, but many sites don't display properly on Firefox. As supposedly these programmers who can't write pages properly for Firefox (which means shortly: write pages properly, as Firefox sticks to standards better than ie does) are the same ones who have troubles with ie6, I guess Firefox won't improve reading these pages if ie6 can't. Anyway, why write several versions of the pages? Write them for ie6, they shall display on later editions as well. The very one single annoyance with web pages presently is that they transmit too slowly for being way too heavy. Adding fashionable whistles and bangs won't improve that, will it?

One small element: I've tried Dotnet 1 on W95, and it doesn't install. Its installer tells very clearly "W95 is not supported".

Thank you all! KB919521 is probably what I had seen, well done. When I assemble my new computer I'll try the register adjustment as well as the Speedstep patch provided through Lenovo (seems to be strictly an Intel patch in a Lenovo timestamped archive, so extract+setup should work on any brand), and then I'll tell you what I see there.

Thank you guys! Yes, I had stumbled on Wiki meanwhile and they give the same Ram limits as given by IcemanND. Each edition (and even each service pack) of Window puts different limits on the size of the Ram and the number of processors, in addition to hardware limitations. Some limits are natural (4GB total, 4GB per task and 64GB total, or 16EB total) but most aren't, meaning that Microsoft have developed costly extra software to limit the editions of their Win according to the licence you paid for. Such things make me angry. Maximum disk: it's not a matter of Ntfs, which would limit the volume size to a still huge value, but of partition. Mbr-type partitions code all sector positions on 32 bits, which limits the disk's size to 2TB. Over that size, you need an Mpt-type partition. Whether an edition of Windows handles Mpt-type partitions isn't easy to guess and isn't related to 32- or 64-bits versions; and some can even access them but not boot on them - how simple. It may even depend on the processor (Server 2003 and Itanium). 32 cores on a socket won't take that long to arrive. Double the number of cores in 18 months, and you have 32 cores in 4.5 years. Any link at Microsoft for the maximum number of sockets and the maximum number of cores per socket? And for the Ram linked to individual sockets? I think Microsoft call it "symmetric memory" approximately.

Hello everybody! I'd like to know the hardware limitations of various flavours of Windows Seven in 64-bits variant. Links to Microsoft or elsewhere would be just fine. Especially: - Is Seven limited to 2TB disks? Does it offer Mpt partitions? Can it boot on an Mpt partition? - What are the maximum Ram sizes? (No theoretical answer please) - What are the maximum numbers of processor packages? Is there any restriction on core numbers? - Can it handle mobos with several Core i7 packages, each having its own Ram with exclusive access? Thanks!

As was already said, W2k ignores hyperthreading and multicore, and treats everything as if they were separate packages. Which means that disabling hyperthreading is often a good idea - and is recommended by Microsoft - if you have enough packages or cores to saturate your W2k's licence capacity. For instance, if you have a hyperthreaded dual-core and your Bios numbers them 1-2 for the first core and 3-4 for the second one, a W2k Pro - which allows 2 "processors" - will use only the first core with HT seen as two processors, and will let the second core run empty at full speed without the patch. In such a case, disabling HT would let W2k Pro run one thread on each core: far better. ----- Just because W2k ignores hyperthreading and multicore, the post-Sp4 patch from Microsoft works equally on separately packaged processors and on multicores, by reducing the clock frequency of unused computing capacity. So finding the patch would be useful for every case. I don't remember details about that patch. My guess is that reducing clock frequency works identically on W2k Pro, Server, Advanced Server, Datacenter. Up to now, I've seen Server-specific patches for Server activities (Active Directory, Dns, Wins, Remote Desktop) but none for hardware use. And all variants of W2k treat HT and multicore the same way. In this aspect, the only difference is the maximum number of "processors" their licence lets them use. W2k doesn't imagine neither that several cores might share a common L2 or L3 - so its use is a bit less than optimum - and is unable of using separated Ram connected to separated Cpu packages, as is the case in a mobo carrying several Core i7 packages. ----- Having both W2k (=Nt5.0) and Nt4, I can tell you only a few percent of all system files are common. For instance, Nt4 ran most system core software in user mode and W2k does it in supervisor mode - this alone prevents using the same code. And as hardware detection and use was completely rewritten for W2k (Nt4 used the Bios for low-level operations, Nt5 doesn't), you may expect different behaviours in the way Nt4 and W2k use hardware. ----- Col. O'Neill : a few blocks away from the present discussion, people had success using Ich7 drivers for W2k on Ich8. And BlackWingCat ran a Raid driver for W2k on ich9r - I still haven't looked in-depth how. I've checked that its Sys file calls only entry points available in W2k, but is it an Intel driver used on Ich9r, or did BlackWingCat rewrite an Xp Ich10r driver as he uses to do? This guy programs W2k drivers and dll in assembler, I wish I could read his site in Japanese. Also, UniAta driver is released for Ich8, Ich8r, Ich9 and Ich9r. No Raid, no Ahci function up to now, but works for Nt4-2k-Xp-2k3. ----- Bootup times: My PIII +pc133 takes 40s to boot W2k so anything longer on a Core is disappointing for sure, especially as the Bios should propose a legacy mode with performance similar to P-Ata133 which is very good. What does benchmark software say, especially Atto? http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/1137/...mark_v2.34.html And did you use at least Intel's InfInst? They work very officially for Ich8 (and even X58's Ich10r) on W2k, even though they don't bring Ahci nor Raid. Anyway, I've received my P45 and E8600, so I should know soon how W2k behaves on them.

Hello! Installing W2k from a Cd drive on Usb has a known bug, for which Microsoft has issued a post-Sp4 patch. It's on my list here : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=129829 My unpublished notes aren't very detailed, but the relevant patches seem to be : KB838921, superseded by KB838417 but this latter is bugged KB838417 creates a BSOD each time I disconnect any Usb peripheral... KB823086 So the combination should be KB838921 +KB823086 - but you may put more, see the other topic. Addresses for the downloads are there as well; sadly enough, KB838921 isn't publicly available - not even at http://thehotfixshare.net But for sure, if you can precopy the installation files on a hard drive, it's always faster. I keep my old drives for that purpose, in P-Ata, Fat32, with installation files for every Win I have. Very comfortable even with a 8GB 5400/min.

Fine, that's exactly what I was looking for! This trouble specific to multiprocessors on W2k is known, Microsoft has issued a patch to correct it (post-Sp4 I believe), I read it somewhere but can't find it any more. So if someone knows where this patch hides, please do tell us!

Errr... I had to do it another way finally. Allocatedasd=2 wasn't enough. It allowed to eject a CF card from a Usb reader as long as I hadn't accessed the data. Maybe it's a consequence of my antivirus, Avast - stopping it completely needs to deinstall it, I didn't try. So I now use EjectMedia with a shortcut that gives administrator rights for this operation. Found EjectMedia here: http://www.uwe-sieber.de/drivetools_e.html (site in English as well) Gross Technik mate in Churmany again, Danke Kumpel! Now it works. I have to type the admin password each time. I suppose a special user account with administration rights would be enough for this operation and may be better in a protected environment.

Well, other people may have different opinions or experiences, and diversity is a richness of forums. For instance, printer sharing and printing queues existed since Windows 95 without needing any Server Windows nor restricting the number of connections, so I'm surprised that a more expensive Server should limit the depth of a print queue. But yes, my main interest is whether I have to install something like W2k Pro or Xp on the client machines and buy extra licences for them, of if the Cals allow me to use the Server Cd and install it on the client machines.

Other contributions please?

Hello you all! You may have noticed (or may not, it's not advertised that much) that the old partition scheme (=Mbr type), where sector numbers are coded over 32 bits in the partition table on the disk, is limited to disks (not volumes) of 2TB. Over that limit, which is coming right now, you need an Mpt-type partition. Few existing Windows (Linux looks better once again) are capable of handling this Mpt partition, but even before Windows or another OS can start its mess, the Bios must read the partition table to find the boot sector that will start the OS. In other words, the Bios must speak Mpt. The (P45 and) ich10r I plan to have are said to access disks >2TB, which isn't the case of every chipset. But does anyone know which release (if any...) of the Bios is able to boot on >2TB on the Ga-ep45-ud3r mobo? Thanks a lot!

Win95 isn't gone, of course. I've one on a P1 120MHz 40MB Fpm without L2: neither W98se nor Me could replace it. And know what? I've given this machine a Compact Flash "disk" (CF card on a P-Ata adapter), and it's pretty comfortable. I've another one on a P1 mmx 200MHz 128MB Edo with L2 and a good disk (7200/min 3,5" 80GB/2): boots in 8s, launches Word in <1s. Both machines have been perfectly stable for >5 years. No maintenance, no Bsod. Well, I don't surf with them, and all applications are carefully chosen (cheap at eBay since they're old). Ms Office 97, Paint Shop Pro 4, Namo Webeditor 4... This makes for really enjoyable computers.

Hello everybody! Could someone provide me with very basic notions on what a license and a client access license (= cal) allow to install with Windows 2000 server or 2003 server? I've never had my own server up to now (but am easy with managing 2000 Pro) and couldn't find clear information at MS - they seem to consider that every Server potential customer already knows that all. So let's imagine for instance that I have a simple 2003 Server with 5 cals. Does this allow me to have 6 computers with W2k3 running on them, one server machine and 5 client machines? Or am I supposed to have 5 licenses for W2k Pro or Xp (in addition to the cals) and install these Windows on the client machines? By the way, can a client machine run W2k3, or only the server machine? And in case the client machines can run a W2k3 using one of the cals each: do these client machines need to be connected permanently to the server? I will always have at least one more secured machine that won't be connected to the outside world through the Internet and hence won't be connected to the Server machine. Can I connect it to the server machine just once when installing Windows (I imagine the server machine wants to decrement a number of available cals, doesn't it?) and then take it away eternally? Thanks a lot!

Wrong.

Could someone make this quick try? Xp would certainly be fine, it doesn't need W2k. In the Bios, set the Sata host to "Ide" instead of "Ahci". Then with HdTach (or HdTune), look if the buffered read speed drops under 133MB/s or remains the same as with Ahci. Thanks!

Sorry guys, but Xp-2k3 count cores, not sockets. Meaning: 1 core for Xp Home, 2 cores for Xp Pro. Vista-2k8 count sockets. W2k counts one hyperthreaded core as two processors (as opposed to one processor with Xp-2k3), so it may be advantageous to switch HT off. So for heavy core counts, you better switch to Vista, or buy an Nt4 Luxurious Server dirt cheap on eBay - but then, installing big disks, drivers, applications gets cumbersome. More or less affordable are W2k Server and Advanced Server. ---------- I'm just getting tired of such limitations at Microsoft. I understand 2 cores may cost more than 1 but I don't see why 1000 cores should cost more than 2, as it doesn't need more software development. Similarly, I'm fed up with Ram size limitations. Having limits and price differences at 32, 36 and 64 bits addresses makes sense, but not at 8GB. These are some of the reasons (as well as 64 bits and activation and Wga etc etc) which may well let me switch to Linux some day.

No no, the doc for the Areca Raid controller tells that the controller works with some mobos having the nForce4 SLI chipset but does NOT work (as an observation fact) with other mobos having the same nForce4 SLI chipset. This refers to the SLI slots especially. That's why I'm looking for experimental data indeed. Computers don't work as one would imagine. Having a Raid card working in an SLI slot depends on if the guy who programmed the Bios thought at it or not - and maybe on if the chipset does have this capability. Intel tells that the Pci-E on the MCH are meant for graphic cards, on every Intel document I've seen so far, so it wouldn't be surprising that many mobos and Bioses don't allow this possibility.

Meanwhile I've at Asrock's mobo manual that W2k is to be installed on Ich10r-hosted drives without adding any driver, by setting the Sata host to "Advanced" and "IDE" in the Bios. This (2) is likely what I'll do until Uniata (6) is available for Ich10r. But then, what functions do I lose with "IDE" settings instead of "Ahci"? - Losing Ncq isn't as important with my W2k, since W2k doesn't have Xp's prefetch that issues multiple disk requests. And with a Flash disk, it would become negligible. - But I wouldn't like the transmission speed to reduce to 133MB/s (Udma6) instead of 300MB/s (Sata2): bad for Flash disks and future mechanical disks. So could someone be so kind as to try it? It doesn't need W2k. Just setting the Bios to IDE, (observe if Win still boots...) and measure with HdTach the buffered read speed of a Sata2 HDD on an Intel southbridge, something like Ich8-8r-9-9r-10-10r. Thank you so much!

Thanks iamtheky, this really helps! So if I have a standard workstation mobo (hence with Sata ports) and want higher performance from my storage, I can - Buy a Sata Flash disk up to 300MB/s and 0ms (or several ones in Raid); - Or add an Sas raid controller on a Pci-E x4 or x8 and connect Scsi-sas disks there. But I can't connect Scsi-sas disks directly on the Sata ports of, say, an Ich10r. That's clear now! By the way, I used to consider that a Raid controller adds 8s boot time because of its own Bios, which offsets the benefits of loading the OS faster. But I've just seen that RocketRaid (and hopefully others) now offers to adjust this wait time through their tuning software. So if they propose 1s or 2s, the biggest drawback I see is now gone.

Meanwhile I've found scarce experimental data on the web. This one is old (2006) and tells that one SLI slot of the nForce4 SLI chipset may work with Areca Raid controller: http://www.areca.us//support/download/Raid...ibilityList.zip That is, the same chipset may or may not work - the Bios probably makes the difference. And RocketRaid publish a compatibility list for their rr2340 controller with PciE x8 : http://www.highpoint-tech.com/France/rr2340f.htm (I don't have it in English, alas) There, the only mobo you find using the P45 chipset is the Ga-ep45-ds4, though many such mobos existed as of October 15, 2008. So again, it seems to be a matter of luck. Intel itself mentions only video cards in the Sli slots. That's why I'm looking for experimental observations.

Hello everybody! Some chipsets (I'm more interested by P45 and X48) can split their broad Pci-E in two 8x busses or even have two 16x busses. I'll probably never have several graphic cards, but I wish these mobos had expansion slots faster than Pci-E 1x. For instance, if I have in the future a raid-0 della muerte with a few Scsi disks, or a 10Gb/s Ethernet Lan, it won't fit in 250MB/s. Yes, I know some mobos offer a 4x extension slot, but this slot reduces to 1x as soon as you use the remaining 1x slot. Hence the question: can I use the Pci-E 8x or 16x on the MCH (Northbridge more or less) for an extension card like a Raid controller or a Lan controller? Or can it host only graphic cards? Did somebody try? Thanks!

Found a comparison chart at Intel, and there are more differences between their various IOH than I thought! There: http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/imsm/sb/CS-022304.htm Especially, have a look at the capability to use disks over 2TB! Few IOH by Intel can access them! I hate companies like Microsoft and Intel. Disks exceeding 2TB were as foreseeable as year 2000, but they didn't take the necessary action. Nobody would notice when buying the product, and then customers will have to buy a newer one. Just as Intel+Microsoft limit memory size or core numbers without technical reasons - except to make us pay again sooner. May Allah shave off their moustache!

Hello everybody! Everything is in the title once again... I've read that Sas, the "Serial Attached Scsi", is meant to be compatible with Serial Ata. But does someone here have feedback (maybe practical experience) on that? I mean: can I just buy a 15.000/min Cheetah or Ultrastar or equivalent and use it on a standard S-Ata mobo, for instance an Ich10r? Or can a simple electrical adapter do the trick? Or did this compatibility attempt go wrong, or did I misinterpret? And in case it works: does one get significant Scsi performance when connecting to a S-Ata II port? And in Raid-0? And by the way: how noisy is now a 15.000/min Scsi disk nowadays? Last time I heard Scsi disks, one wouldn't stay willingly within their special room, which was covered with sound absorbers. Thanks!