98SE

LOL. Does sound similar to Tu_rd if that's what you meant needing renaming.

As I already mentioned before in our prior discussion in another thread I have been using the rest of my memory as a large Ramdisk for years maybe going back to 2011-12 with the current one. I have used Ramdrives going back to DOS. In DOS you could create a small Ramdisk just big enough to hold two 1.44MB floppy disks and copy the disks to it. MFM hard disks were very slow and noisy then so you could eliminate a lot of computer noise doing this and it loaded so fast compared to floppies. So when you mention it as if it doesn't exist seems a bit odd or as if no one else is doing this. Memory was not expensive if you wait for the right time to purchase. At one point 16GB DDR3 went as low as $60 USD here. $120 is not outrageous for you is it for 32GB memory? Now if you are applying the Ramdrive to 9X/ME I'm only repeating what was already established and done endless times on XP but on a more primitive OS. On 9X/ME I would probably say 8GB is more than sufficient assuming the Ramdrive is one contiguous chunk and not split into two if it exceeds 4GB leaving you a 3GB and 4GB chunk at most. Wouldn't you prefer to have a solid 7GB chunk? I highly doubt I am the first to use a Ramdisk in 9X/ME or a even a seemingly enormous one to you. One used to think 640KB was more than enough for us to use on a computer. But look where we are now. I even have a few computers that only had 4KB only and to someone to hear someone else using 640KB is creating the same feeling you are experiencing of disbelief. I hope you aren't complaining you have a machine with a few MBs worth of RAM during 9X/ME or in this case GBs on modern computers? I'm sure you would have tried using the extra memory if you had large optical discs to image or programs that required multiple discs. I would have preferred if programs had remained small and compact and fit on floppy disks and coded efficiently but that lasted until CDs became popular and things became severely bloated. If I were to try and interface a CD-rom with 98 which were usually IDE based there would still be lag and delay when loading the disc. The Ramdrive would be an alternate way of storing a virtual image of the disc and accessing it as fast as possible. Also I don't know why you think everything is considered arguing when someone brings a different perspective that you have not experienced or can imagine. If I were truly arguing you would know it and most of those people don't even respond to what you have to say. I'm not sure why you are so defensive about improving something rather than accepting what is given. This is another reason why we are still stuck on just 4 cores for so long. We should be on 16 cores by now if you consider the time it took from P4 to Z77. Sometimes you have to question to understand the reasoning behind something even in a simple Ramdisk name. Ever heard of a car named Nova? Guess why it didn't sell well in Mexico. Just as you have asked what is the reasoning for me to use a Ramdrive big or small some may find 32GB limited today and for those people you can ask what they use it for. There was a time when 32MB was a lot of memory on the 486. What is your first computer? If we are talking about 9X/ME what use do I have for such a large Ramdisk I mentioned there were several DVD based software that could be imaged and stored directly on the Ramdrive to avoid needing to use a DVD-rom to load directly or from a hard drive. Granted it would be a very extreme case in your view by having the least possible amount of loading delay but back then we were dealing with slow ATA IDE hard disk drives and some MFM ones and early CD and DVD optical drives were a bit flaky 1x and usually used sound cards to interface properly that needed DOS drivers. And many used PCI or ISA slots which no longer exist on many motherboards now. This may not be of interest to you as you are not someone I believe that used your 9X/ME for gaming purposes so it is unlikely yourself would deal with optical drives and swapping optical discs if you only used the internet and some very old office programs. You mentioned you thought 16GB on a computer seemed like an insane amount of memory in 2017. Perhaps 10 years ago I would agree it sounds extreme. But today I find 32GB not a lot as I'd like and there are motherboards with 128GB going back over 5 years for x79. Maybe it is time for you to try Windows 7 64-bit or increase your memory or use programs that use a lot of memory and you will see 16GB on the border of usability. Seeing how the internet has progressed and the web pages loaded now require more memory when at one time 512MB on XP allowed opening maybe a couple dozen windows then but today you need 3GB just to do the same. If you don't multitask much and don't use any heavily intensive graphical stuff then you should be fine with just 16GB for most of your needs. You might even be able to go to 8GB or 4GB since you are very cheap on program memory usage. But I would say if you used Windows 7 64-bit that 16GB is what I think is just the right amount of memory today. On XP the 3.2GB is very restrictive without using a Ramdrive. Going back 10 years this wasn't a problem as my P4 was fine with 2GB then. Also it's not just the price which you skipped as my main reason and you can find it cheaper on eBay than $40. The PCI card must be very low profile to fit into that PCI to PCIe riser adapter and make sure the bracket will fit properly to be screw secured into the computer. If the PCI card is too tall this will become a problem if it is not flush. Also it would be easier to just get a PCIe USB 2.0 card instead of all that work and probably a lot cheaper and less headache. If you have a usage for the Ramdisk it does not make it circular. You are assuming I got the extra Ram only to create a problem for myself. I got the extra Ram because I wanted a large Ramdisk to make use of for a multitude of reasons. The only problem then was finding a program that could create a large Ramdisk. Most could not create that large a Ramdrive or were very cumbersome to use. But now 128GB would be a nice size to have and I don't consider it for fun but essential for my needs. I would allocate 16GB for XP OS use and the rest for the Ramdrive which would be a good balance today.

That is a bit overpriced method of adapting PCI to PCIe slot. Also the whole bracket alignment thing? You might need a real short PCI card for that to work with the PCI to PCIe riser adapter. If you try this adapter let us know the result. I'm worried about the bracket not being flush.

Maybe WXMS or W9XMS Ramdisk for Windows XMS Ramdisk or XXMS for eXtended XMS Ramdisk or a more inclusive name RLoew's WinDOS 4GB Plus XXMS Ramdisk. The Non-XMS Ramdisk naming threw me off when I first saw it. I could only assume you used XMS in the title to attract more XMS type hits. But if your program can make use of a larger Ramdisk in 9X/ME I would try and advertise this feature in the title somehow as I assumed all other XMS Ramdisks could be seen inside 9X/ME and yours was the only capable of >4GB in size using the 64-bit version. I haven't had time to test any Ramdisks made in DOS to see if they are detected in 9X/ME in decades. I thought they were detected or I had done this back in the day with some of the older DOS Ramdisk programs at the time which were much smaller in size given the max limits then but if you say they aren't detectable in 9X/ME I'll have to try a bunch of them out again to refresh my memory and if this is true then this is a useful feature if your program is the only one with this unique capability and you should proudly flaunt it. Have you tried measuring how much conventional memory the Non-XMS driver uses and how much your command line Ramdrive program uses individually? You had mentioned your program does use a few MBs or so but in DOS even a few bytes would cause a program not to run so every byte counts. These would be very important features to advertise for DOS users who need the most memory possible for certain programs and would enhance your product's attractiveness. Does your Non-XMS allow loading drivers and TSRs into your non XMS memory region or is this strictly for your Ramdisk program only? This is progress and it uses a single drive letter rather than two? Does your program offer the ability to specify in bytes the size of the Ramdisk? If you create a handicapped or nullified demo program I am interested in testing how much conventional memory it uses at the DOS level to compare against memory managers low memory usage. Also on the config.sys program maybe you can include in this information on the driver boot screen verbose option. . XXMS 32-bit Memory available (1 byte -> 4GB) Conventional Memory available (loading your Non XMS driver before loading other Config.Sys and Autoexec.Bat files) 655360 Bytes free<- Max example it will obviously be lower from DOS High Memory available 384KB (640KB -> 1024KB) 393216 Bytes free <- Max example EMS Memory 64KB max 65536 Bytes free . XXMS 32-bit Memory available (1024KB -> 4096GB) 3221225472 Bytes free 3145728 KB free 3072 MB free . XXMS 64-bit Memory available (4096MB -> 64GB+) example for 32GB installed - 4GB 32-bit 30064771072 Bytes free 29360128 KB free 28672 MB free . . XXMS with no parameters show 32/64-bit RAMDRIVE program with detailed verbose output XXMS 32-bit Memory available (1024KB -> 4096GB) 3221225472 Bytes free 3145728 KB free 3072 MB free (example for 1GB would display specified in the following formats for assigned drive letter Y:) Y: 1073741824 Bytes allocated 1048576 MB allocated 1024 MB allocated . XXMS 64-bit Memory available (4096MB -> 64GB+) (example for 32GB installed - 4GB 32-bit would display specified in the following formats for assigned drive letter Z:) 30064771072 Bytes allocated 29360128 KB allocated 28672 MB allocated . Total RamDisk Capacity for 32GB installed (32-bit + 64-bit XXMS combined) 3GB + 28GB 33285996544 Bytes allocated 32505856 KB allocated 31744 MB allocated . . Possible command line syntax: I'm making up these if I were to create one XXMS DriveLetter: XXMS assigns Drive Letter to Ramdrive . XXMS /c XXMS configuration output shows all Ramdrives created in sequential order Sample output U: 32-bit Ramdisk #1 1024 Bytes, 1KB W: 32-bit Ramdisk #2 1048576 Bytes, 1.00GB X: 32-bit Ramdisk #3 2097152 Bytes, 2.00GB Y: 64-bit Ramdisk #4 8388608 Bytes, 8.00GB R: All-bit Ramdisk #5 16777216 Bytes, 16.00GB . XXMS /u32b3 = uninstall 32bit Ramdisk #3 and free memory XXMS X:/u = uninstall Ramdisk assigned X: and free memory /32b1 = 32bit Ramdisk #1 /32b4 = 32bit Ramdisk #4 . XXMS U:/32b1=1024 creates drive U: XXMS 32-bit Ramdisk 1024 bytes . XXMS W:/32b2=1048576 creates drive W: XXMS 32-bit Ramdisk 1GB . XXMS X:/32b3=2097152 creates drive X: XXMS 32-bit Ramdisk 2GB . XXMS Y:/64b4=8388608 creates drive Y: XXMS 64-bit Ramdisk 8GB . XXMS R:/3264b5=16777216 creates drive R: XXMS 32-bit/64-bit Ramdisk 16GB or XXMS R:/allb5=16777216 alternate way of stating 32-bit/64-bit Ramdisk using /allb creates drive R: XXMS 32-bit/64-bit Ramdisk 16GB . FAST OPTIONS to create maximum Ramdrive size possible: XXMS S:/32bfast6 creates drive S: the largest 32-bit Ramdrive using available RAM up to 3GB (1GB->4GB region). If no Ramdrives are created can use XXMS S:/32bfast1 . XXMS T:/64bfast7 creates drive T: the largest 64-bit Ramdrive using available RAM above 4GB->. . XXMS L:/allbfast8 creates drive L: the largest 32-bit and 64-bit combined Ramdrive using available RAM above 1GB+ as one contiguous memory chunk. If no Ramdrives are created can use XXMS L:/allfast1 . XXMS LOEW/u Removes all 32bit and 64bit Ramdrives and frees used drive letters and memory. . I'm pretty sure they will work inside 9X/ME as long as the proper 9X/ME driver is available for it it should not have a problem. As far as booting off these 3rd Party PCIe USB 2.0 I'm more inclined to say probably not. I don't think the BIOS lets you choose a 3rd party USB cards as a bootable option but maybe a hacked BIOS might allow it.

I would say mine are linear based if you recall the thread we shared explaining my long list of uses for the Ramdrive in XP. But I doubt most people will use an XP Ramdrive if there is no need despite the extra unused RAM capacity. Most just stick to just 4GB and accept the small loss or moved to a 64-bit OS. I tend to maximize what I use when possible. Qemm jaclaz?

BearWindows could you develop one that had 2D and 3D support for the integrated GPU Intel HD Graphics 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 that worked on the Sandy and Ivy Bridge Z68/Z77? These still worked on XP with proper Intel drivers. Is there any way to rip the ROM out of an older video card for emulation using your driver? Something like an nVidia 6800 Ultra or 7950 GX2 would be a good one to emulate for 9X/ME.

I never named my XP Ramdisk. But I think I could call it my XP "Life Saver". I couldn't leave 29GB of RAM just sitting there wasting power doing nothing. Bill Gates calls his "Bob". His is 2TB in size.

I'll have to look for some PCIe SATA cards down the road for experimenting if it detects in the BIOS properly for selection as a Boot Controller. The P4 didn't even bat at eye at the VIA SATA controller and no option to select it as a Boot Controller so I gave up and tested out the IDE to SATA adapter which worked. Would the Non-XMS Ramdrive be renamed RL XMS Ramdrive or was there a reason to include XMS in the description. I thought the XMS usually referred to Ramdrives above 1GB range and beyond. I know you could have named it just RL Ramdrive to shorten it. What were you looking for on the USB 2.0 PCIe cards that needed testing?

Heh... I like using older Windows 3.1 Office. Word and Excel only... very tiny on a few floppy disks! I used it on 95 and 98. Even worked on 2000 and XP. Office 97 I think is the last version before Office got too bloated and kept trying to error correct you as you typed! You made me miss using them. AOL IM also a favorite. v2.0 is so tiny no junk included. Too bad facebook and twitter killed it. If Office > CD 650 MB time to say No! A friend wants 2016 Pro installed on Windows 10. We now need to create 9X/ME emulator like DOSBOX but 9XMEBOX. 9XME deathbed coffin now opening.

@blackwingcat Blackwingcat did you create or found a working SATA AHCI driver to install Windows 2000 using F6? My Z170 has no IDE controller and no SATA IDE mode for legacy install. Also any new news or update on getting Intel USB 3.0 xHCI to work on Windows 2000 without 3rd party add in PCIe card?

I had used Windows 2000 for as long as I could until programs said XP requirement and I needed those programs. Sounds like you squeezed 14 years out of that OS. But I don't think you used regular Windows 2000 without constantly patching? Did you find a proper Windows 2000 Sata AHCI driver? I tried using SATA AHCI XP driver but no luck. I think you should consider XP and Windows 7 only for permanence. Why did you stick with Windows 2000 for so long? Was it to avoid needing to authenticate your copy every time you install? I only used NT 4.0 for Dual Boot test with 98SE which later I did 98SE and 2000 for more permanent usage. But 2000 looked to be better and more stable when opening too many Internet Explorer windows. Windows 2000 could do near unlimited till the memory ran out. 98SE would crash and become unstable and have to reboot but I needed it for DOS programs too. Right now on XP and completely fanless except one laptop hard drive but you can't hear it. This one should not die for 20 years most likely or ever. Hopefully Fanless ATX power supplies will still exist as no other components I hope will die by then.

I agree the 9X/ME compatibility looks grim since PCIe slots seem to be the last remaining option for graphics cards and those are pretty rare with functional drivers. Since a lot of standard DOS programs don't work on Z170 I have to say it is the biggest kick to backward compatibility so far. The death of USB 2.0 eHCI and no USB 3.0 xHCI DOS or Win9X/ME drivers. Fortunately my DOS imaging software still works but there is no idea if Z370 and later will change that and when that time comes there is the "official" death coffin. I offered some possible solutions in my post for emulating those graphics cards if you have graphics card driver emulation experience maybe you can make it simulate one of the best 9X/ME graphics cards using the Intel HD Graphics chip or AMD iGPU? These are fanless and integrated and should easily have enough power to emulate something like a 6800 Ultra or maybe 7950 GX2 with your 512MB inclusive patch. Another emulation project could be for the Voodoo 3D cards don't exist on PCIe. When using these 3rd Party SATA PCIe cards are there any special BIOS options you need to change for them to be detected and work as the Primary Boot controller? Which two AHCI cards failed? I have a few of these cards. What sort of tests did you need for these? Maybe I can help.

How many years did you use for each OS jaclaz? I used DOS the longest, 95/98 third, 2K fourth, XP second, Vista fifth tied with Windows 3.1 for now, W7 sixth, W10 seventh, ME, OS/2, NT 4.0, Mac OS, and Mac OS X+ eighth.

I can help you with this. Can you tell me how many Dimm slots on your MB and each Ram module capacity? If it is 4 slots 1GB each then remove 3 x 1GB and leave 1GB but you will have to tweak system.ini file. If you have a 512MB that is the best one memory stick to put it and remove the rest. The 128GB SSD could work but you will have to remove the 160GB HD. I corrupted my 160GB back then because of the 137GB or 128GB actual limit corrupts the drive when full. I don't recommend anything higher than 128GB. The safest with less headaches is 60/64GB hard drive as 98 DOS and Windows tools have no problems functioning.

I'm looking for a list of DOS Ramdrives and Windows 3.1/3.11/95/98/ME Ramdrives for a Performance Comparison test. I will be testing them for compatibility, stability, and speed on the P4, Z77, and Z170. (386 and 486 might be tested later) Anyone is welcome to add their recommended programs to this topic. You can explain why you like or dislike it and any special parameters or features you use. Free or Commercial Ramdrives are acceptable. Any benchmark programs you would like to see used go ahead and list. . ╔═══════════╗ ║ DOS RAMDISKS ║ ╚═══════════╝ [Jaclaz] Currently proposed: ReSizeable RAMDisk - SRDISK: https://sourceforge.net/projects/srdisk/ . 2005 Freeware Jason Hood SHSUFDRV v1.02, SHSURDRV v1.11 - SHSUFDRV: https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/disk/shsufdrv/ http://adoxa.altervista.org/shsufdrv/index.html . ╔══════════════╗ ║ 95/98/ME RAMDISKS║ ╚══════════════╝ [Jaclaz], [tErmY] Currently proposed: Original Ramdisk Franck Uberto Ramdisk v1.9i - 8-12-1998 - XMSDSK.EXE and EMSDSK.EXE Functionality: Working on Z77 https://www.terabyteunlimited.com/kb/article.php?id=267 http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/downloads/thirdparty/ram_drive.zip http://www.uwe-sieber.de/files/xmsdsk.zip Franck Uberto's Ramdisk v1.9i - 8-12-1998 - fu_rd19i.zip - XMSDSK.EXE and EMSDSK.EXE http://www.geocities.ws/politalk/rmdrv/fu_rd19i.htm . Cenatek (Shareware), pretty hard to find nowadays: http://cz.nnhost.ru/soft/%D1%E8%C4%E8%F0%EE%EC/MkBootCD/ramdisk9xme15.zip . ╔══════════════╗ ║MEMORY MANAGERS║ ╚══════════════╝ HimemX v3.34 - 06-05-2013 - The Ultimate DOS XMS memory manager derived from FreeDOS Himem. Functionality: Working on Z77 Authors: Japheth, Tom Ehlert, Till Gerken Possible advantages noted: 04/27/2008 v3.33: HimemX don't freeze on 386 CPUs now. 04/13/2007, v3.28: - bugfix: HimemX checks for a 80386 cpu *before* using 32bit opcodes, so there is a true chance that this driver will not crash on a 80286. https://sourceforge.net/projects/himemx/ ╔═════════════════╗ ║COMMERCIAL RAMDISKS ║ ╚═════════════════╝

The loss is greater than just 1GB and any huge memory loss that large is significant. If we installed 5GB or 6GB a 1GB chunk is a noticeable loss and it's about maximizing all RAM if possible even if the OS itself can't use it directly but maybe as a Ramdrive it could be useful for storage of multiple virtual CD or DVD images. But for the time being 9X/ME I would focus on the first 4GB for regular programs due to its limitations it can't really make use of more than that effectively. I'll need more time to investigate the only SATA controller non IDE compatibility motherboard issues but I never had a problem running it on SATA on Z77 until you mentioned this. The SATA to IDE adapter connected to an IDE to SATA adapter would be another test to see what happens in 98SE on modern systems with only SATA controllers. But the 3rd party PCIe SATA controllers won't always work to boot directly so unless you've tested out and confirmed a bunch of them for people that will serve this purpose on Z170 and later chipsets then your SATA patch might not be utilized with no legacy IDE mode. I'm starting to see the Z170 as a huge cut off point where 9X/ME is dead. The lack of PCI slots means DOS SB MIDI is also gone even though ISA was a better option. Without AGP and now PCI slots are mostly gone it is much harder to get a proper 9X/ME graphics card to work since most PCIe graphics cards lacked driver support. The only way around this might be someone coming up with a 9X/ME 2D/3D driver for the Intel HD Graphics which is found commonly on most Intel CPUs. Possibly an AMD iGPU equivalent driver could be created but that would probably be something you know more about. This is something you could sell on your site if you have the know how to adapt it to emulate a nVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra. 9X/ME Graphics cards options are getting scarce and most of those used fans or overheated already compounding the problem. The Win ME 1.9GiB as compared to 98SE 1.152GiB is a significant boost for memory support. Perhaps a proper WinME kernel mod based patch could be done by you with relative ease for strictly WinME unless somehow you can find a way to port the WinME kernel to work with Win98/95?

That's the most obvious answer but there is EMS and XMS and conventional so I don't see why not call it non EMS Ramdisk or other name. It could have been called RMS or RLMS Ramdisk if it was to differentiate itself from EMS and XMS.

The memory stated was hand copied after the driver loaded in config.sys before reaching the command prompt. Those values changed when I altered my BIOS and or Graphics devices so I was adding that detail in my tests in case it may help you or others to maximize the amount of 64-bit memory before running your non XMS RamDrive. The PCI-E SATA Card option you are talking about 3rd party add in? I did try this on a P4 and it failed but it is a PCI card so I can't test in the Z170 as it only has PCIe slots. The BIOS has to support it and that is hard to tell which ones will work or not work. Most you have to load a driver once inside the Windows OS to access the SATA card properly and cannot be booted off as a primary boot device. I found some more success on the P4. IDE to SATA adapters do work to use cheap SATA storage devices and I was able to boot into 98SE no problem off the SATA SSD. No more IDE hard drives are required. This may circumvent the need for a SATA patch for people using IDE controllers. I was talking about making a better Limitation Patch mod not based on the 98 kernel but using the ME kernel and related sys files. Maybe the WinME had updated the memory threshold beyond 512MB and could go up to 4GB stable for programs? Those 2 years they might have noticed the increase in memory capacity in desktops and decided to alter some of the code. I know the revised 98SE FDISK can see over 64GB when WinME came out but I haven't tested the WinME FDISK for any other improvements. I know most people gave WinME a bad wrap but since you've studied the 9X code then maybe you could do the same for ME. I would gladly try a WinME based kernel patch on WinME if it was an improvement over the 9X. I can't see why ME would be worse than 98SE if they had 2 years to improve it. The only thing that bothered me about it was the removal of the DOS boot and the extra bloat of the OS size. Today both are addressed and no longer an issue.

Default XP is not pretty as Vista theme. But Windows Classic mode is the best. Looks like 98 and 2000 and very fast.

That is nice Dibya. Does your sister prefer XP only? According to this info page: https://ark.intel.com/products/82930/Intel-Core-i7-5960X-Processor-Extreme-Edition-20M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz Looks like true 8 cores / 16 Threads. Does the XP Device Manger under Processors show 8 copies of i7-5960X or 16 copies? I will wait for 16 cores / 32 Threads to upgrade.

I should probably state looking for your best recommended DOS or Win9X/ME Ramdisks to do a comparison test instead of non XMS Ramdisk in that case. Any particular reason why it was named Non-XMS Ramdisk rather than just RLoew (32-bit or 64-bit) Ramdisk?

Have you had any success in getting Google Chrome > v49 to work on XP?

I added more info since first post in case you didn't see it. For others following this thread the results are in this post. www.msfn.org/board/topic/176752-rloews-non-xms-ramdisk-and-related-software/?do=findComment&comment=1140264

@Dencorso Yes Dencorso I spent many hours yesterday / today and have done an extensive memory comparison test with different configurations on the Z170 to maximize the memory available on Rudolph Lowe Non XMS Ramdisk test program. Check this posting below. www.msfn.org/board/topic/176752-rloews-non-xms-ramdisk-and-related-software/?do=findComment&comment=1140264 Also there is a large missing chunk of memory I cannot explain yet and will need to do more tests to see how it affects 98SE and DOS programs. On XP it appears to lose over 1GB but still functional. I am going to try and get 98SE working on Z77 first since P4 keeps overheating too quickly but I finished installing 98SE on it so I might have to find a better heatsink to passively cool it down for comparison. That is a lot of RAM to be missing that the Ramdrive could be using and 98SE can probably run fine with 256MB->512MB and I think this is a Z170 issue so I will have to limit 98SE to see if this affects the size of the Ramdrive at all but I want to focus on Z77 first to make sure it works properly as it appears more compatible. I will also have to do a comparison test with other Non XMS Ramdisk to see if the same amount is missing for 2GB/4GB/8GB setup which is the optimal amount for 98SE with Ramdisk. I can't see any more RAM being useful over 4GB because you need a 64-bit Ramdrive and splits into two separate Ramdrives and letters which I don't want. If someone creates a single DOS or 9X/ME Ramdrive creates one contiguous chunk using one drive letter it will be more useful for people with over 4GB systems which is common now. Do you have any recommended alternate Ramdisks for DOS and 9X/ME you wish me to do memory comparison tests? I will try and test them all out and report my results when I am done since you seem to be keen on a bunch of these over the years and I don't want to leave out any. Also if you have any recommended software cache programs I will test them out. At the minimum I will test on P4/Z77/Z170 to see which ones work/don't work etc.

Wait Dencorso, I recognize that CPU but it only had 4 cores but that is the fastest or top end Ivy Bridge. Need to go to X79 to get true 6 cores. But some Xeon CPUs can go higher but unknown what happens in XP. http://ark.intel.com/products/65523/Intel-Core-i7-3770K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz I have an X79 MB but Intel didn't want to update BIOS to support Ivy Bridge on it. This one is true 6 cores but my Intel MB won't work with it no CPU support. http://ark.intel.com/products/77780 Works with this older Sandy Bridge one but now only 8 core or more interests me. http://ark.intel.com/products/63697