98SE

I would use a Pen Drive around 1TB in capacity for the test but those are expensive and speeds can differ between brands. When you transfer a file often times Windows will give you a false estimate or the actual speed is not accurate. Once the pop up window stops the drive is still writing so this adds elapsed time not accounted. A better more accurate test might be using a 1TB SSD if you can find one and do 1 TB transfer from that to a 1TB Ramdrive. You will see the speeds stabilize and no buffering or cheating will occur. Unfortunately neither of us have access to that large enough SSD or computers with that much RAM. Okay according to the official USB 3.0 specs they market. 5 Gbps = 5 Giga Bits per second 5 Giga Bits per second = 5000 Mega Bits per second 5000 / 8 gets you the 625 Mega Bytes per second therefore the 625 MBps. USB 2.0 was stated as 480Mbps = 480 Mega Bits per second 480 / 8 gets you 60 Mega Bytes per second therefore the 60MBps assume the same payload reduced by 20% gives you 48MBps. The payload you described would reduce the 5Gbps rating to 4Gbps so which is 20% less. so 80% of 625MBps = 500MBps = 500 MegaBytes Per Second. I have not seen any USB 3.0 onboard or PCIe card so far that even comes close to half that sustained transfer rates of 250MBps. I've only seen ranges around 130-140MBps and I think that test I did was inside Windows 7 64-bit. So XP should be much lower than that or half way between high end USB 2.0 to USB 3.0 speeds. My USB 2.0 speeds ranged between 20-40MBps so let's say 40+140=180/2 = 90MBps should be something you'd see in XP 32-bit on USB 3.0 ports. I haven't seen them go this high but then again I'm transferring GBs of data between two 8TB USB 3.0 external powered hard drives. When I switch over to Vista 64-bit I see better performance than in XP 32-bit on 3rd party Etron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_3.0 The USB 3.0 specification was released on 12 November 2008, with its management transferring from USB 3.0 Promoter Group to the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), and announced on 17 November 2008 at the SuperSpeed USB Developers Conference.[30] USB 3.0 defines a new SuperSpeed transfer mode, with associated new backward compatible plugs, receptacles, and cables. SuperSpeed plugs and receptacles are identified with a distinct logo and blue inserts in standard format receptacles. The new SuperSpeed mode provides a data signaling rate of 5.0 Gbit/s. However, due to the overhead incurred by 8b/10b encoding, the payload throughput is actually 4 Gbit/s, and the specification considers it reasonable to achieve only around 3.2 Gbit/s (0.4 GB/s or 400 MB/s). However, this should increase with future hardware advances. Communication is full-duplex in SuperSpeed transfer mode; earlier modes are half-duplex, arbitrated by the host.[31] Since my experience with USB 3.0 speeds in XP 32-bit usually are at most 3.0 times faster but usually in the range of 2.0-2.5 times faster I don't think being able to use my xHCI USB 3.0 ports at USB 2.0 speeds is "unusable". For example let's assume USB 2.0 is like driving 60Mph on the highway (which was pretty fast compared to 1.0/1.1 at that time) and USB 3.0 was supposed to be 600Mph but in reality it goes 180Mph. I'd rather be able to drive 60Mph then 0Mph is how I look at it. USB 1.1 would probably be like going 1.5 Mph so I'll take USB 2.0 speeds over nothing. But you mentioned you only do Math programs and some imaging. I can't see that being too data intensive like DVRing HD videos on 10 channels non stop and that works fine on USB 2.0 speeds for me so why complain it's not getting USB 3.0 speeds or call them "unusable" when even their specs claim 10 times faster yet in reality on their best day it might be more like 3 times which is still pretty much false advertising. Give me real xHCI speeds of even 500 MB per second or else how can you claim that those USB 3 speeds are even accurate? You should be p***ed all the time that they aren't getting half that speed on Windows 7. That's how I see it. But since real day performance transferring TBs of data between drives even 250MBps on XP 32-bit would make a real difference and save me a lot of time compared to 40MBps peak. The reason I went for the Z68 Gen 3 and Z77 boards was they introduced PCIe 3.0, USB 3.0, and added a powerful iGPU into the CPU. Coffee Lake is the first real advancement since SB worth blinking an eye at. I wish USB 4.0 and PCIe 4.0 and 128GB was introduced but that's considering given the same amount of time from P4 to SB and SB to CL we should be seeing 8C/16T for consumers not this late stage 6C/12T because AMD brought Ryzen.

Yes it will support it since it is SB but those are very expensive today and hard to find brand new and sealed. You can take a chance on a used one and most are overheated or abused so buying a new and sealed box is the only way I would go. http://www.ebay.com/itm/INTEL-i7-2700K-CPU-QUAD-CORE-LGA-1155-SOCKET-PROCESSOR-3-5GHZ-NEW-/112530051764?epid=111374982&hash=item1a335052b4%3Ag%3ABYoAAOSwUIhZX-pk&nma=true&si=%2BNsx3NRoit9czJSvbl7WBIXSIKw%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 You can wait for Z470 MB but who knows if they will change the USB from Asmedia to Intel or change Realtek Audio to Other with no XP driver? I would get Z370MB first and use the cheaper i3-8100 for $120? Or find a real cheap Coffee Lake Celeron $50-$70? Wait till i7-9700K releases and then update BIOS on the MB and sell off cheap Celeron CPU. But if you are in no rush we can see what Z570/Z670 has and it might be 8 core Intel Desktop Consumer CPU? No more 4 and 6 Core BS. Did you get the Intel LAN working on your Z170? That seems to be the only thing left to get working.

I did a comparison of all their Z370 MBs took several hours but I found one more MB that will knock the socks off the Z68. I focused on the SATA3 you wanted "4 SATAIII 6Gbps ports..." and XP working on Asmedia USB 3.0 ports. Examine the specs for the P8Z68-V LX. https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P8Z68V_LX/specifications/ Intel Z68 chipset : Storage: (2) MAX 2 x SATA 6Gb/s port(s) XP USB 3.X ports: (2) MAX 2 x ASMedia USB 3.1 Gen 1 port(s) Compared to the Z370 Taichi https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z370 Taichi/index.asp#Specification Storage: (8) MAX 6 x SATA3 6.0 Gb/s Connectors 2 x SATA3 6.0 Gb/s Connectors by ASMedia ASM1061 XP USB 3.X ports: (6) MAX 2 x USB 3.1 Gen2 (A/C) Port (10 Gb/s) (ASMedia ASM3142) (Supports ESD Protection) 4 x USB 3.1 Gen1 ports from 2 Headers (ASMedia ASM1074 hub) (Supports ESD) - You can use all 4 USB ports on the front panel.

I have a Z87 but no CPU yet so I can't verify if that "unofficial" Haswell iGPU driver is stable, works, or is fully functional. You have to remember that if you're using the iGPU it's very limited in performance compared to a real graphics card. But if this "unofficial" driver does work then it might be possible to test if it works on SkyLake and Coffee Lake but a lot of times this fails. So whatever those guys did to mod it it's unknown if the performance is equal to a HD 1000-4000. You never mentioned your budget but if you're already eyeballing i5-4690K or i7-4790K you might be able to wait and get the i7-8700K instead for about the same price and get 2 more cores or 4 extra threads. If you're operating on the cheap and the goal is two systems one XP and one for Newer. Get an Ivy Bridge laptop that has an HD 4000 in it. These will be more than enough for your XP needs. Then use the I7-8700K as your XP/7 machine. The AsRock Z370 Extreme4 has 4 total Asmedia USB ports for XP. 2 on the Rear, 2 on Board. Just use something like this to make them usable and you don't use any PCIe slots and its in front of your computer where it's more convenient to reach than around the back of the system. $10 same price as buying the USB card. http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-5inch-Floppy-Internal-20Pin-4Ports-USB3-0-Front-Panel-Floppy-Bay-Bracket-Cable-/232249433113?hash=item3613251c19:g:wfEAAOSw~AVYrX1y The onBoard Realtek Audio should work since it is identical to the Z170 that I use. The onboard Intel LAN I think someone could have modified it to work but I haven't tested so if you search hard enough maybe you'd come up with one to save another slot. If you're worried about using or not using too many cores you can choose a low end Dual core Celeron $50-$70 which might already be enough power for what you are doing and I hear $120 for the Quad core model. You can reduce the cores in the BIOS to lower the heat if you're thinking is you won't be using any programs that uses more than 1 core. If you're interested in a new AMD AM4, the user Ragnargd has tested one out recently and mentioned that he couldn't underclock or reduce the CPU cores. So if that's true this actually gives Intel an advantage in cooling if you don't need all cores running or need all that speed. Also it's unknown if it can work with XP so only AM3 is confirmed to work with official drivers. If you're not into gaming you can try the Bear Windows driver for very basic VGA functionality in XP with the Coffee Lake iGPU. http://bearwindows.zcm.com.au/vbe9x.htm If you're still too timid to test the waters I'd go this route and purchase these items: #1 eBay Used Ivy Bridge Laptop with CPU that has Intel HD 4000 Graphics for XP. #2 AsRock Z370 Extreme4 (ASRock Z270 EXTREME4 costs $165 so expect around this ballpark pricing) #3 i3-8100 Super-cheap Core i3-8100 quad-core https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2017/09/25/intel-announces-8th-gen-desktop-cpus-lower-prices-bad-news-for-amd/#c05ea9546d63 At launch there will be three non-K-series CPUs, including a quad-core in the form of the Core i3-8100. This is just as interesting as Intel states a retail price of just $117. #4 DDR4 Memory 8GB using 4GB x 2 https://www.amazon.com/Ballistix-Sport-4GBx2-PC4-19200-288-Pin/dp/B01F4Z4OPW/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1506995025&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=4gb+ddr4&psc=1 $84 #5 Header adapter for XP USB3.0 ports $10 Total for the desktop parts $376 (buffer another $100 price fluctuation) $500 MAX. Just found some news looks like it's coming this month: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/coffee_lake Intel announced Coffee Lake-based SKUs on September 24 with products available beginning October 5, 2017 and OEM systems starting Q4 2017.

Your point? I have actual usage proof. Are you dealing with large amounts of data 8TB of hard drives constantly using the Intel USB 3.0 ports in XP 32-bit? I used both on a constant basis and it's pretty sad and quite slow. Even on Vista I tested the onboard Etron and they performed way better than in XP 32-bit (Intel xHCI and Asmedia). If you want your stats posted then just import them as a jpg attachment so it'll pop up on the posting. You make it sound like I don't care about your results. Did you do the testing yourself? You can find tons of other tests done on USB 2.0 vs USB 3.0 speeds all over the web. And I've tested more USB cards then you have under XP 32-bit so I've seen the vast majority of speed differences in performance and I repeat not one even approaches the 625MBps max or even half that. You can copy and paste the numbers if you want and I'll read it. Now if you found such a USB3 card or onboard that can do 625 MBps (MegaBytes not Megabits) or even half that figure sustained for 1TB of data transfer between two External USB hard drives let me know. Chipset drivers - Usually this is a batch of drivers rolled into a setup package. Some just identify Hardware IDs that don't need drivers. So instead of the ? listed in Device Manager it is identified but no driver is actually used because it doesn't need one. It's made to make it look pretty so you don't get annoyed. Often times a few of these include IMEI and some others but even on a regular Z68/Z77 I opted not to install them and it has no effect on my XP stability. You won't find any onboard drivers for XP past Intel HD 4000 - Ivy Bridge that are functional. Once you get to Haswell it is Windows 7 only for the Intel iGPU. That's why I recommended you stick with your video card or get that 960 OC Strix which has drivers for XP, Vista-10. (There was some Haswell embedded video driver I stumbled upon but I never tested since but I heard it wasn't fully functional only partially). Those Z97 MBs you listed are Broadwell so they will definitely not have any XP drivers for the iGPU and also Broadwell CPUs tend to be very pricy and not many were made. You'll probably end up using a Haswell which is almost like Ivy Bridge in performance. You could go with Skylake like me but honestly when you can get the 6C/12T for probably the same price as the the 4C/8T I don't see the reason why not wait a little longer until you can get it in your country. How fast does something released on the US get released in Belgium? Is there any delay? If not then Amazon would be the easiest way to get it. Now the MB I recommended (AsRock Z370 Extreme4) you could actually use the onboard audio on XP. It's the same one on my Z170 and the same USB controller that has XP driver support. Also this board can use the Cannon Lake CPUs when they come out as long as you update your BIOS so it's got some room to grow if you start out with a cheap Celeron to see how it performs and install XP and wait 1.5 to 2 years for the Cannon Lake and splurge on the i7-9700K. But to simplify the headache I would recommend you use a 960 Strix video card instead and use the HDMI port so you get both audio and video solved. I'm not positive if the onboard network has XP drivers or if someone has made them work but you can find a cheap Realtek brand with XP drivers just look at the listing details if its listed and double check the manufacturer website for the official ones. There are some Intel ones also if you want to spend more and I've seen a few of these have Windows 2000 drivers. The USB cards are pretty cheap and most have 4 ports some have 7 ports so you could actually end up with more working XP ports than the rear ones. Just double check the chipset to make sure there are official drivers for XP and most of them I've seen have them. I recommend that Coffee Lake AsRock Z370 Extreme4 MB and get the i7-8700K and pair it with the 6 core / 12 Thread CPU. Since this is the first consumer class Intel MB that has 6 cores it is a big deal. I wish this had happened on Skylake so I'm a little peeved. But if all you care about is just using XP on some old MB then you can probably try a cheap AMD 990FX MB and pop in a FX-8350 Bulldozer and use your old DDR3 memory. https://www.amazon.com/AMD-FD8350FRHKBOX-FX-8350-8-Core-Processor/dp/B009O7YUF6/ref=dp_ob_title_ce Passmark 8,943 i7-3770K Passmark 9543 So quite close in performance and those i7-3770K are quite expensive to get. If you want decent performance while on 24/7 operation I would underclock the i7-8700K down to 3GHz for the simplest and use Auto CPU Core Voltage. But if you want it run even cooler you can work on tweaking the undervolting but that can be very time consuming and you'll have to burn in the CPU with Prime to find and keep track of the CPU temps and mark them down every 20 minutes and then every hour after until you find where the stable temp resides. Then lower it in small increments till you reach instability and go to the figure where it was still stable. Sometimes this can take a period of a day or two before I'm ready to finalize my CPU settings. I don't recommend this for you because I think this may be a bit too technical and boring for you so just underclocking it to 3GHz would be enough without the extra work. If you want it to run super cool and guaranteed to last 5 years or more you could probably go down to 2GHz on this and because it has 6C/12T it would still be pretty powerful compared to the Z77 Ivy Bridge top end I7-3770K or on par with less heat and could be run 24/7 for certain. I have a Skylake underclocked to 3GHz and it runs fine and less heat but has only 4 cores. So if you assume the cores are identical then 3GHz x 4 = 12, vs 2GHz x6 = 12. It would be very interesting to benchmark this vs an i7-3770K to see how they compare in performance and energy usage. If you decide to go for this let me know I could walk you through the parts to get XP working on it. My Z170 is almost identical to it and it uses the same socket type so another Intel greed practice at work not allowing Skylake BIOS updates to use it. It'll blow away any Z68/Z77 you were thinking about building and those CPUs are sometimes "obscenely" priced. And if you wanted two machines you could buy identical MBs and use a cheaper dual or quad core Celeron on the other system and use the more powerful one on Windows 7/10. Maybe some BIOS Modder could add the microcodes for Coffee Lake CPUs to work on Z170 if that was all required to get it to run. I've seen some laptop mods use unsupported CPUs this way with identical socket type.

Need I remind you that I have the same board as you for the Z68 (Asus P8Z68-V LX) and as the daily driver for DVR and I have about dozen mix of other Z68 and Z77 boards. They operate at USB 2.0 speeds by design because Intel didn't want to create fully compliant xHCI drivers for XP-32 bit or even Vista which was shocking at the time but decided to do it for Windows 7 as probably a marketing ploy to make W7 look more attractive to consumers even though most real users including myself have dissed Vista when it first came out but I find it today a better than W7. I can't see the PDF since I don't install AAR on this system. But given the title you are using a Pen Drive I'd say you're going to get slightly better performance than going from USB external to USB external. You'd get better speeds going from USB 3.0 straight to RAM which I do a lot for video editing. But none will ever approach full USB 3.0 speeds when in XP 32-bit. You might want to explain further what you meant here "Of course one can sort of run XP SP3 very lamely even on Z5xx or X5xx. But one can enjoy the full potential of, at most, the Cougar Point chipsets". Are you speculating on post Cannon Lake chipsets? What are you describing as "lamely" that can't be done? Cougar Point Z68 was a good chipset when it came out but if I remember correctly there was some bug that caused early SATA ports to fail and got fixed on Z68 Gen 3 MBs. If it wasn't for Z68 Gen 3 I don't think I would have upgraded from a P4. Too many good points coincided to build a passive machine still capable of running XP 32-bit. I have multiple 8TB hard drives working in XP 32-bit and do tons of video editing and transferring between drives. You are still operating under a fallacy if you think Intel USB 3.0 ports are unusable. Also the pipe dream if you are going to keep waiting around for some ReactOS driver to miraculously save the day. I've already spoken about a 3rd party developer that already has made such drivers for many manufacturers including for Microsoft. I don't think most people would be willing to pay for it. We could be waiting 3-5 years on this ReactOS driver to emerge? I'm not sure even yourself would wait around that long when buying a USB 3.0 PCIe card can be in your hand in a few weeks. Are you going to trust it for vital data assuming this driver worked in XP? And why even wait around instead of upgrading as you already know Z68 and later don't have fully working USB 3.0 speeds in XP 32-bit? Or let's assume the hypothetical and this ReactOS xHCI driver for XP 32-bit is done today. Then what would hold you back from upgrading since now all Intel chipsets you can use the xHCI ports at full speed. Even operating at USB 2.0 speeds the Intel USB 3.0 ports are "usable" and "utile". Do you censor those ports and not use them? If they were completely "dead" that would be upsetting for XP and most people would have chosen a board with only USB 2.0 ports which was an option then but the lure of seeing if USB 3.0 ports could work in XP even at USB 2.0 speeds is better than nothing at all. Both Z68 and Z77 under XP 32-bit do not have full xHCI support at full USB 3.0 speeds no matter what but this is a bad excuse to not upgrade. I already mentioned you could get USB 3.0 PCIe cards that work under XP 32-bit and way above the USB 2.0 speeds and not one have I seen operate at the claimed 625MBps. The most you'll get with 3rd party like Etron or Asmedia is maybe half way between USB 2.0 speeds to USB 3.0 speeds. And when I say USB 3.0 speeds I mean USB 3.0 speeds found in Windows 7 64-bit. The fastest USB 3.0 speeds I've seen under XP-32 bit is around 130-140MBps. This isn't anywhere close to 625MBps. What is your definition of USB 3.0 speeds? If USB 2.0 is 480Mbps = 60 MBps and USB 3.0 is claimed to be = 5.0 Gbit/s = 5000Mbps = 625 MBps In realistic day to day transfer from USB 3.0 External Hard Drive to USB 3.0 External Hard Drive using both xHCI USB 3.0 ports I've probably only seen at most peaks up maybe 40MBps for USB 2.0. On Etron maybe you could get 60MBps. On XP 32-bit Try doing a real benchmark on the same Z68 MB using the Asmedia USB ports. Get a WD 2TB external USB 3.0 powered hard drive connect it to the Asmedia USB 3.0 port copy 1TB = 1000GB straight of video files to another WD 2TB external USB 3.0 powered hard drive. Time the whole thing and tell me how long it takes to complete the full copy. Then do another test on the Intel xHCI ports with the same two WD 2TB external USB 3.0 powered hard drives. Time the whole thing again. If you're not really involved in a massive amount of data like me in copying and moving TBs of data around don't reference a benchmark on some Pen drive. The sustained transfer rates might give it an advantage on small files or short copy times but doing a 1TB transfer from USB external drive to USB external drive you will see more accurate realistic transfer rate results. If I copied from a USB drive to Ramdrive it would be a way to benchmark a higher result but not realistic everyday speeds but perhaps in a decade we will have 1TB memory capable systems to test such a large Ramdrive.

So far we've only polished the single hoof of the horse. The pompous beef tartar with grey poupon will come later at the point when Intel finds a way to make it impossible to install XP onto it and so far Z270 works with XP while Z370 and Z470 I would say a good chance as well. But if he needs a SSD any 120GB/128GB MAX would be suitable in laptop 2.5" form. Same goes with 2TB laptop 2.5" hard drive. Avoid those 3.5" drives as they draw more heat. Plenty of 2TB 2.5" laptop hard drives around these days Seagate Backup Plus Slim 2TB. Just pop the drive out of the enclosure and it has a regular SATA connector. Yes clearly those old used parts have been run for who knows how long with probably a lot of heat built up over the years or clogged fans. SATA ports begin failing so testing to make sure the used MB you bought holds up or ends up in a return war battle to get your money back. Also for some reason most of this crap does end up costing more than you'd want to pay when you can have brand new unused technology that runs "faster and cooler" and probably cheaper than the risk you were betting on used older technology that could fail sooner than you'd want wasting time and money. https://ark.intel.com/products/77779/Intel-Core-i7-4960X-Processor-Extreme-Edition-15M-Cache-up-to-4_00-GHz (6 Cores / 12 Threads) Passmark 13863 15 MB SmartCache 130 W TDP https://ark.intel.com/products/65523/Intel-Core-i7-3770K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz (4 Cores / 8 Threads) Passmark 9543 8 MB SmartCache 77 W 9543 to 13863 (45% boost) That wouldn't be worth the improvement you hope to gain from the i7-3770K. What sort of math applications / image processing are you doing? Even a i5-3570K seems beefy enough for most tasks I've seen. You'll also have to invest in some major water cooling possibly given the high TDP. Consider even the SkyLake i7-6700K (4 Cores / 8 Threads) Passmark 11108 If you add 2 more cores found in the i7-8700K (6 Cores / 12 Threads) we can extrapolate a possible low end minimum benchmark improvement to 16662 potential score. If you want to upgrade you should consider the AsRock Z370 Extreme4 MB and get the i7-8700K. https://ark.intel.com/products/126684/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-4_70-GHz (6 Cores / 12 Threads) Passmark 16662 potential (about 75% boost over your i7-3770K) 12 MB SmartCache 95 W TDP Or the more energy efficient version: https://ark.intel.com/products/126686/Intel-Core-i7-8700-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-4_60-GHz (6 Cores / 12 Threads) Passmark 16221 potential (10814 x 1.5) adding two more cores based on i7-7700 with 4 Cores/8 Threads (About 70% boost over your i7-3770K) 12 MB SmartCache 65 W TDP So if you chose the i7-8700 vs i7-4960X You're matching the Cores and Threads Decreasing the TDP down to half from 130 to 65 Watts means a nice saving on the electric bill. Passmark comparison would be better (13863 vs 16221 estimate) So you're getting a 17.0% Boost in performance on top of it. The Asmedia 3.1 USB ports can work in XP. You have to transplant your working XP USB 2.0 system files to the system32 folder first since no eHCI ports exist on Z170 and later they won't be installed. Use a HUB splitter and you can hook up 4 or more USB devices if necessary like USB mouse, USB keyboard from the single port. If you need to connect more external USB devices use the USB 3.0 4 Port+ PCIe card off eBay for $10 or less to get around it. You could start with a cheap low end Coffee Lake Celeron first and wait 1.5-2 years for the 9th Generation i7-9700K which should be the ID of Cannonlake's high end CPU like your Ivy Bridge i7-3770K so you max it out in one final upgrade. Most of the low end Celerons cost about $50 range and you can still get a lot of functionality on these. There might even be quad core Coffee Lake Celerons since they bumped everything up 2 cores. Dencorso I don't think you have ever used a Z77? You are operating on a fallacy. I have almost a dozen of these and Z77 Intel USB 3.0 ports work in XP. They only operate at USB 2.0 speeds and aren't "dead" or "unusable". The 3rd Party USB 3.0 like Asmedia also operate at USB 2.0 speeds. You have to go to USB 3.0 PCIe cards to get between USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 speeds in XP. You can NOT get full USB 3.0s in XP as far as I have tested. Even testing in Windows 7 USB 3.0 speeds are usually around 2 times to 2.5 times the speed of USB 2.0 in XP. So in all cases you aren't missing much at all not having USB 3.0 speeds in XP. If USB 3.0 speeds truly were 10 times as they claimed this would be a big issue. I haven't tested these later chipsets but as long as the BIOS has xHCI Hand-Off for the Intel xHCI ports they should theoretically work and the Intel USB 3.0 ports should still function at USB 2.0 speeds in XP on Z87, Z97 and X79. and X99 according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_X99 "One Extensible Host Controller Interface (xHCI) controller and two Enhanced Host Controller Interface (EHCI) controllers are integrated into the X99 chipset, providing a total of up to 14 USB ports". Skylake 100 Series and up is where Intel USB 3.0 Ports can be classified as "dead" in XP since eHCI was officially neutered.

Yes this is old news and only relevant for overclocking and heat issues. You are also dealing with a die shrink so less area to cool down on top of that issue. If you underclock and undervolt the IB is a superior CPU for that purpose of 24/7. You are incorrect. I use XP on Skylake and Kaby Lake CPUs no problem. Ryzen I haven't had time to test it yet but I have the parts just need the time.

Looks like most of the information you got hasn't been up to date and some of the new advice you got so far needs it. P55 chipset and the Core i5-650 if you want you should do a fresh install with Windows 2000 SP4 on this system as an older rig. There shouldn't be any reason why it is unstable. Actually the Ivy Bridge can probably run cooler than Sandy Bridge if you are underclocking. On the IB you can undervolt the CPU down to 0.60 Volts. The lowest I could get SB was around mid 0.7X range. If you are talking about overclocking then IB could run hotter. But if your goal is silence that means lower voltages and less heat. I see no point in having two machines or one dedicated just for XP use in your situation. I've been building multiple XP systems and even Kaby Lake will work with XP just fine. In fact I'm recommending you wait a little longer for Coffee Lake to be available in your area since you are in Belgium and get what I consider the Paclaz class top tier build. AsRock Z370 Extreme4 64GB Ram Max so in your case just buy a 16GB DDR4 single stick. Later when DDR4 gets cheaper you can fill the last 3 slots over time. I don't see the point in buying say a 4GB or 8GB module and then having to replace it later with a 16GB later to get the 64GB max. This one you can equip with an i5-8400 or i7-8700 both at 65TDP. But the biggest reason is the first Intel 6 core consumer CPU and will work in XP. The i7-8700 has 12 Threads if you need it. Why do you need the PCI slot? You can get the PCIe to Dual PCI internal slots adapter and put it in the last PCIe 3.0 x16 slot I mentioned in my Z170 Test. If you get a USB 3.0 PCIe card it can work in XP so you can use USB Audio and USB Network devices if you want to save slots. 6 x SATA3 6.0 Gb/s Connectors since that was a concern, 1 Serial Com Port header in case you are interested in using Windows 98 on it. As Dencorso admits to not being a gamer although this is a bit strange he has an i7-3770K which is a top end Ivy Bridge I'm not sure why choose that powerful a CPU at that time. Also I have to disagree that Asus is not necessarily a better hardware line than AsRock. I have the same Z68 MB and that one the iGPU failed to work detect anymore and on top of that 2 of the 4 banks won't fully detect 32GB so stuck with 16GB max on it. Several of the Intel SATA ports also have failed. On the AsRock Z68 and Z77 versions they still detect 32GB and iGPU still detects and works on them. I've tested all the Intel HD Graphics 1000 up to the HD 4000 is the last official XP driver supported for Intel iGPU. As far as performance yes it could do the the 1080P videos and such. But there's one major weakness is the HDCP was not included so commercial Blu-ray playing software will not work with it "DU" Intel. Only Windows 7 was properly programmed to include it. So going with an actual graphics card is a better option for XP and Vista. From your list of XP video card possibles I'd go with the - Asus STRIX-GTX960-DC2OC-2GD5 (21.5cm ~ 8.46in / 1024 CUDA) It is slightly better than the other 960 but since both need the extra GPU power connector and both take up 2 slots no reason not to go with the OC version here. With this card it will run in XP and use HDMI so no extra audio card is needed. I would say you are better off using the GT 610 simply because it has proper HDCP in XP and Vista. Also HD 4000 lacks Vista drivers so that is another con. The performance playing on a GT 610 will be far superior than the HD 4000. Also another thing you overlooked is the Intel iGPU uses shared memory so it will actually steal from the 3.22GB you have whereas using a physical graphics you aren't penalizing yourself. XP 32-bit doesn't care if you install 512MB or 32GB or 64GB. It can see it but the OS itself probably can't utilize more than 3GB for the OS applications but the excess memory I've used as a Ramdrive, Pagefile, Temp, Browser Cache, and Program Storage which includes Gaming in your case and yes you can run Crysis on it. I've tested this with 32GB and 64GB configuration so you could really benefit if you are doing video editing and storing the video file in the Ramdrive and editing it. If you are going to use those DDR3 sticks I'd go with 4GB, 2GB, 4GB, 2GB to fill all 4 Banks in that order to get 12GB total. If you have the money or can get the money just wait for the AsRock Z370 Extreme4 and can build a super powered XP 32-bit / Vista or W7 64-bit Dual Boot. Vista 64-bit closely resembles XP-32 bit the most and there is no point in going with XP-64 as it can't run the DX11 software and Vista can be made to run in Classic mode which is what you want an XP like interface.

[Inadvertent double quoting removed] That's quite a cache of drivers. Maybe if zipped them all put it some dropbox people could archive them for individual use. I would suggest if you were looking for the last non activated Windows OS close enough to XP you hunt down an old copy of Windows 2000 off eBay. You can easily find SP4 around and some custom patches from other users to get it run some semi recent browsers. Personally I like to use vanilla 98SE and 2000 Pro for a little retro speed testing as well. Sorry you couldn't activate your copy of XP which is probably the best OS to use without going to 64-bit and still the most functional of the three.

@Jaclaz Paclaz is a remote top tier getaway location in France. It has nothing to do with your "name". I could rename it Zalpac but it would lose its meaning of exalted excellence. I also used it for a gaming username in the past so I don't think you can claim full ownership of a nickname or word that does not match yours even if it is off by one character. Will you target someone if you saw the word jaclay or a new member used that nickname and you assumed negative intent? Regarding any pun - which I understand to equate more of an insult then that would make my view of the word Paclaz a compliment above Jaclaz. If I ever was even thinking of even a simple pun of your name simply removing the letter "l" from your name would be clear indicator of bad intentions which Paclaz does not invoke. I don't know if you are joking but as an example of posting in one my threads with "...6" could be construed as ill intent to hijack/obstruct and not funny by an OP and this is just another one your hijinks again but if not then you should understand Paclaz /= Jaclaz but Paclaz is considered > Jaclaz in ranking as words only. So if you dislike seeing Paclaz after this you must state so and I will use Zalpac so it has no clear association. You should also refrain from doing such hijinks type behavior if similarly done by someone else could mistakenly be interpreted as a congenial attitude. Back on topic... In the beginning that might be a good thing to have open flavors for discussion on MS, PC, Doctor, Free, and DOSBOX are some good starter topics people could discuss in the beginning. Earlier PC-DOS till 5.0 was actually MS-DOS renamed so it would still be classified a MS software. The D.O.S. title is for aesthetics even though DOS would work but SEO would be better if D.O.S. was used to filter out unrelated results. Also other acronyms like DOS = Denial of Service is hardly ever seen as D.O.S. making it stand out. https://www.allacronyms.com/D.O.S./Disk_Operating_System http://www.ebay.com/itm/Guide-to-D-O-S-and-P-C-Performance-ExLibrary-/272426730738?epid=118045624&hash=item3f6de604f2:i:272426730738 D..S.

While I will agree DOS isn't dead since I still use it and how I got 98SE working on a Z170 but still MSFN will benefit having it added its own subforum within the Microsoft Software Products forum. Also MSFN needs more foot traffic and I'm not one to jump onto a new board when this one could use it more although props to reboot.pro for their own. P.S. Paclaz warning: SQL Error An error occured with the SQL server: This is not a problem with the IPS Community Suite but rather with your SQL server. Please contact your host and copy the message shown above.

The Dual Channel 1024MB split gave you some boost there. Try 512MB = 2 x 256MB @ DDR400 dual channel and see what fps comes up if identical? Was this a two max memory slot MB? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR_SDRAM DDR1 Bus Clock 100–200MHz Internal Memory Clock 100–200MHz DDR2 Bus Clock 200–533.33 Internal Memory Clock 100–266.67

It does look like you picked the lowest end quad core 8 thread CPU you could get your hands on easily. Since this number crunching is important have you thought about making some program to tap into a Pascal GTX 1050Ti or high end NVIDIA TITAN XP? Pascal lacks XP drivers you would have to go to a GTX 900 series for native XP without hacking. But certainly if bitcoiners are mining off those things they could assist in your mathematical computations instead of CPU alone. Is more CPU cores / threads really the best way for the number crunching you demand? Would a lower clock frequency high core / thread count be as effective? On the cheap end there's a 15 Core / 30 Thread - Ivy Bridge E E7-8895 v2 http://ark.intel.com/products/79209 https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=intel+82546&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.TRS1&_nkw=E7-8895+v2&_sacat=0 Could go for as low as $700 / $1K BIN if no takers. Threadripper 1950X is ready to buy for $1000. https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Threadripper-32-thread-Processor-YD195XA8AEWOF/dp/B074CBH3R4 4GHZ 16 Cores 32 Threads 180W If there was a low powered ThreadRipper with these specs: 2GHz 32 Cores 64 Threads and a super low powered 1GHZ 64 Cores 128 Threads For the sake of argument most likely the more cores = more wattage but let's assume this could be possible. Which one of the three would outperform the others in your mathematical number crunching? Which one of the three would win on graphics gaming assuming the game took advantage of all Cores/Threads?

Your original topic got lost with the specs. I tried to get LoneCrusader to copy it to the 1st post of your Disappointment thread so people could follow what the MB and specs were and I can't keep up beyond that I tried. It probably would have been helpful to add that on your own to the new thread you made updating the failure since no link directing to your MB specs post was made to let others catch up. Yes I think this will be your most elegant... and unfortunately quite expensive solution but it "depends" on how badly you want to test out that video card on your new MB and try to match the benchmark you envied. Intel Core i7-3770K baby! The best of the old quad core, eight threads money can buy with a working Intel iGPU for XP and Vista on the Z68 and had a passmark rating of 9544 but still limited to 32GB Max on board. I thought money was a concern but if it isn't then I would have opted for this one instead of the Z87 going back to X79 you could increase to 64GB on most 8 memory slot ones or the ultimate Big Bang-XPower II (MS-7737) to 128GB although I wonder what kind of memory would get you 16GB DDR3 and it must be very expensive server class. https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/Big-Bang-XPower-II.html#hero-specification You'll want the motherload CPU i7-4960X (6 Logical cores, 12 Threads) the most powerful native XP Beast without hacking the hell out of your system with add on cards. Passmark rating 13861. X99 would probably work with some hacking but I can't tell if any onboard devices would be XP supported without checking every integrated device for XP drivers and most will not work with 98SE without add on cards. Add the PCIe to Dual PCI adapter I listed and your BIG Bang would be the best DOS/98SE/XP/Vista/7/10 Legacy build at least in theory since it hasn't been done yet. You could probably hack the hell out of a X99 and get more mathematical performance if you sacrifice some compatibility for the sake of extra number crunching. I think X99 might have not cut out the eHCI so that might be the high end you can do with the least amount of hacking for 98SE to work.

Yes this is what happened in XP and a predictor of the early XP OS death if USB 2.0 ports based off the eHCI were to go away. Without eHCI ports starting with Skylake 100 series this caused problems for installing XP via USB up to Windows 7 as well. However 98SE wasn't known as a very heavy USB dependent OS at the time. I never used it all during my 95 days. I still recall seeing them pushing USB devices back in 1998 at Fry's that Windows 98 supported up to 128 USB devices. Using a P4 MB at the time I stuck with the serial mouse and PS/2 keyboard and since the USB ports were USB 1.1 on the rear and the USB 2.0 were internal headers I never actually used the USB 2.0 ones until recently when I added a USB 2.0 header bracket and I wish they had made the rear USB ports 2.0 speeds or I would have probably liked USB at the time and used them more. Later I did use a USB optical mouse -> PS/2 adapter so using both PS/2 ports for Keyboard and Mouse was the norm and I don't believe the loss of eHCI USB 2.0 ports will mean 98SE can't be used. I installed 98SE multiple times with just a USB keyboard -> USB to PS/2 adapter to the PS/2 port. If I ever had any USB mouse hooked up it would act crazy when moved. So I wouldn't mess with a USB mouse till post desktop install was complete swapping the USB mouse to the PS/2 port and using any USB 2.0 port with the USB keyboard should work with the BIOS PS/2 Simulator. USB 1.1 pales in speed to USB 2.0 that it's like night and day. The USB 1.1 speeds were only effective for USB keyboard and USB mouse or a small USB flash drive so my use of USB was minimal then until XP came and my Z77 Ivy Bridge quad core combined it made it user friendly even for any webcam to hook up and work without any special drivers. Also your Z87 was an unfortunate choice for a first modern Intel MB to test the waters again. That's when they intentionally killed XP driver support altogether. The only redeemer is I believe eHCI ports were still alive on Z87 and Z97. The iGPU is wasted without any XP and Vista driver as they cut those two out and made it W7 and later only. As far as mathematical computations you probably could have gone with a Z68 and overclocked a cheap i5-2500K and got more value than out of a Haswell / Z87 CPU that couldn't stand the heat and couldn't be overclocked as easily. The Broadwell desktop chips were disappointing for a secondary upgrade choice as the options were limited and no new Celerons either if you wanted a budget Broadwell Celeron build. It was built in obsolescence as most Z97 boards killed off PCI slots from the start so hunting for PCI slot motherboards could be an adventure. Microsoft and Intel knew what they were doing when eHCI was finally evicted starting with SkyLake to get all Windows 7 and older OSes out and Windows 10 into every PC. Only Windows 8.0+ can work with xHCI ports natively now. Their master plan of Big Brother is alive and well. Okay I'm still not sure if your MB had onboard USB 2.0 headers or any rear USB 2.0 ports but if you say you've tested all the Ports and the header ones and they still don't show up in 98SE then you really are screwed and must go with internal USB cards. But if a USB sound card is not necessary then keep reading. All these restrictions, MATX case means you can't use the extra space inside the case to get the 2 PCI slots. However I found the best way to work with your limitations but it comes at an extreme cost. I would have considered this in your situation if I felt it was worth the money and I really needed it. Since you are stuck in that case and buying another case is out of the question and another motherboard would add to the cost this is the best all in one solution and probably looks the best. It will cost $134 USD total ($116 + $18) according to this link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/PCI-express-PCIe-x1-to-dual-PCI-slot-Riser-Adapter-Enclosure-for-graphics-card-/282283875809?hash=item41b96e1de1:g:nyIAAOSwB09YSRCX Now if this was the cost of Paclaz's recent dinner and generous tip I would go for it because it is very nice and compact and access to the sound card on the front of the case would be a nice feature. Just remember we living in your limitations. It would have been nice if you had some extra internal slots but alas. So either wait it out or save up and get that adapter above. It's your best all in one solution fitting into your case. Also the USB ports could be on the front. Now the question is what are some good USB network devices for 98SE? Now you could use a PCI network card here in slot 1, PCI USB card in slot 2 (USB Port 1 - Sound Card) It now all comes down to money and I'd love to hear you try this out on your setup. It would work. 23...

On eBay I saw a PCIe to 2x PCI adapter board. But for your motherboard since it is MATX you would have enough room for the 2 PCI slot space and lose the PCIe slot. You could always sell your MB after finding a proper one with PCI and PCIe slots in ATX form factor. However it is better to go with a better ATX motherboard from the start then try and fix the problem afterwards. Sometimes the MB is cheaper than the post work around solutions. Did your MB have USB 2.0 headers on the board? Try those with a USB 2.0 header to rear bracket if no Rear USB 2.0 ports. They should be Non Blue. You can still hook up the USB keyboard to it and it should function without a driver. PS/2 emulation mode in BIOS is usually a good thing and the USB mouse with USB to PS/2 adapter to PS/2 port the mouse won't act funny. Or go with the Asrock MB Z270 models I listed and use the serial com port header for serial mouse which always works with DOS/3.X/9X/ME legacy support. I also spotted a very expensive Serial Port adapter that could connect a USB device to it so a USB mouse would work on it. Make sure there are 2 or 3 PCI slots on the MB if possible. One of the slots might get overlapped by your graphics card depending if it is a dual or triple slot hog. There might be a USB 2.0 and SATA PCI card combo but I never actively looked for it but I think I may have spotted some before trying to filter out my searches. I'm not sure about that for PCIe but it is possible and it could be very expensive which you don't want and probably more expensive than getting a straight ATX MB with PCI slots. Most of those PCI USB cards are cheap maybe $5-$7? ...17

This is a problem I also noticed. The only way to reveal it is to highlight the data with your mouse. I'm not sure if this can be fixed on the Forum side but on the user side adjusting the font size smaller by increasing the resolution will fix the problem but I like my screen at 1024x768.

I don't think it's necessary to Rudolph patch everything and you mentioned no more money which you don't want to spend. I didn't use any Commercial Memory Patches or modify my Windows System Files for my testing. I even tested 64GB DDR4 just to break another barrier on the Z170 but USB ports shouldn't be necessary since you have 2 PS/2 ports. It's the sound card you needed. I saw a PCIe to Dual PCI adaptor board on eBay which might work with your MB if you're using a full ATX case and have room to add two slots next to your MB this could be a hardware solution. One could be for PCI sound card or network card, and the other for PCI USB card. Maybe a USB Network and a USB Sound card could be used on two USB ports? ...14 -

Well I can't stand XP in default mode. Probably why a lot of 95/98/2000 users were turned off by it initially. The whole cartoonish looking interface. Luckily all these can be shut off. But just change it to Windows Classic Mode and Classic Start Menu, Add Quick Launch back, De Group similar tasks, Remove Graphical Animations, Remove Windows Default Sound Scheme to No Sounds, Add 98SE fresh install Welcome Startup sound as your new Windows start up sound. Change Background from Blue to Black. Disable the Dog from File Search. This pretty much gets XP looks like 98/2000 for the most part. There are some other minor adjustments aside from this that I tag on but since I've used all three for many years I like that user interface the most. Even Vista gets props for keeping the Quick Launch. There were some snappier shorter delays on the 98/2000 Windows animations popping up which probably could be done on XP but I haven't tried. As for which updates made Windows 2000 Superior? Maybe BWC can add those to XP. One thing I remember Windows 2000 couldn't do on a small laptop screen was increase the font size of the desktop icons and icons text as large as XP could. Was there some fix to improve this? That XP version you have probably exists everywhere in China and India but if they had made XP the same as 2000 not requiring activation I am sure people would be using XP as long as possible like BWC for 2000. What system are you using Windows 2000 on?

No I only made 5 place holders just in case more experiments or other equipment. Paclaz saw I stopped making anymore so he stopped by and did a naughty. 9, 12 Well I had a P4 fanless experiment. But I put it on hold when I was working on the Z77. I bought one of those massive copper heatsinks meant for a P4 3 GHz and get the lowest wattage P4 chip you can find and test it out. You might have to hack the BIOS to underclock it down to 800MHz or less as most BIOS I've seen have a locked multiplier. A Prescott is probably way too hot. I had some semi decent passive heatsinks and I could barely cool down the 1.2GHz for more than 90 mins before it got too hot. I think BIOS Hacking is in order to add a multiplier changer. 400 MHz would probably be still powerful enough for DOS ISA stuff and run fanless. I just remembered it was possible to have a completely fanless P4. There was some Sony branded Vaio desktop that made its case part of the cooling element so there was no cooling fan at all. It was around $1000 for the system from Costco but it got returned. I don't think it was full ATX as most of those AIO bargain desktop systems usually were some sort of mid ATX. In comparison I lived with the P4 3.06GHz HT jet engine for several years and one day the CPU burned out. Not sure how the fan stopped spinning but that caused the CPU damage and random reboots / glitches and I had to get a cheap Celeron for a substitute. I no longer miss those loud fan days. It's much easier to have a fanless P3 which I have done before and most P3 the BIOS can allow changing the multiplier down to 1 for 100 MHz. It might have been possible to reduce to 66.666666~ MHz tweaking the other settings.

/IP Bypasses detection of undocumented plug and play devices. So far in my tests I only used /IS and it had nothing to do with the CPU or Chipset. I just hated the ScanDisk running for no reason on a clean drive. I've been hacking the video drivers (many hours) also to remove the extra bloat in the .INF file and resolve some compatibility issues. I use a HDTV monitor so those high frequencies may end up causing a problem with what you are doing. You're probably using a regular CRT. Glad you got your older rig to work without modifications. It's always nice when things work as they should as A to Z and straightforward. I think Microsoft should have considered fixing the max memory issue in Windows ME. It probably would have become more popular in the end had it worked properly with over 3.2GB and then someone would patch it to use all your memory like XP. Alas. I've updated the requirements looking for 8GB and higher installed memory systems running without commercial patching or modifying the Windows system files. But definitely it's nice to hear some legacy systems still work without any modifications. Can you push any of them to 1.25GB, 1.5GB, or 2GB total if they aren't already max memory capped?

Hmmm... you're telling me that network card boot delay lag in 98SE wasn't patched already by now and somehow Win ME has it fixed? Bummer about that outcome for you. If you shipped me the video card I'd try and test it for you and see what benchmarks it would give if that in some way would make you feel better knowing what it could have been. Yeah, in my MB choices I chose wisely considering XP compatibility but 98SE and XP compatibility oddly go hand in hand. Full ATX and PCI slots does make it a better candidate to run legacy hardware. Your main PC is still possible for XP so it really isn't a total goner and as far as I can tell Z270 still functions. Z370+ we shall see if Intel did any nasty changes even though getting rid of the eHCI was evil enough. But I'd save your money until Intel starts handing out octocore desktop CPUs instead of their stale quadcores then we can think about investing. Some more important upgrades would be SATA 4.0, PCIe 4.0, USB 4.0, and 256GB of RAM MAX on board for starters not this 64GB bone throw. Everything else is just tiny incremental ~%5 CPU boosts which no regular user is going to notice day to day surfing the web. Try reducing the CPU wattage down from 65/35 Watts down to 20 Watts. At least AMD finally came around with Ryzen to smack Intel's greedy hands for now and finally wake up with their Coffee Lake. But who's drinking that brew?

Wouldn't we all Presario! Free and cheap is good when possible. I also had a 915 that ran Pentium-M CPUs. It was an early attempt at a fully fanless desktop system. But they used some proprietary CPU fan cooler that was incompatible with socket 478 so that was an early fail. Maybe I should take another stab at that and try and underlock it and find some 3rd party heat sink to mount onto it. I actually do the opposite of most since I underclocked and undercored the Z170 for my testing. It ran on 800MHz Single Core and it still runs way too fast (or appears). I did try to ramp it up to 4.0GHz but with 98SE the performance difference isn't that drastic as you think. You can run it slightly slower than 800MHz but if it were possible to drop it to 400MHz I would just to see what impact it had on heat. The 98SE system runs completely fanless. No commercial memory patches or other Windows system files tweaking headaches and I tested 64GB DDR4 on it even though it passed the 8GB test already and it had no apparent difference in stability. Sure it isn't using a 7950 GX2 (which only one of the GPUs gets used but runs cooler with all that extra cooling) but I don't want parts to break down and there is already enough heat generated as it is running this entirely fanless. Speaking of AM4... My MB arrived a few days ago. It was a possible experiment for 98SE first if Z77 and Z170 worked but time will tell if I will be able to report my findings here when I'm done. I need to open and see if it is possible to mount a fanless CPU cooler onto it since it is not Intel socket compatible this may be a problem. But if ragnarg is correct and it can't be underclocked or undervolted then it might be worth waiting for that 35 Watt CPU APU and deal with a fan begrudgingly. I have no crucial allegiance to AMD but I'm interested in seeing how well their APU performs as I haven't really used AMD since back in the K6 era aside from their graphics cards which now have shifted in favor over to nVidia for low wattage energy efficiency. But if they ever kick out a Sub 20 Watt CPU I'm skipping the CPU APU for a nice fanless HTPC server. If I can get 98SE and XP working on it then mission accomplished.

Yes that would probably be the "gamer's" most important use of 9X/ME but not a regular user who is not focused on that. If there was a particular 9X/ME title that won't operate on XP and later those would be the titles worth spending the time / money to get working on an older or newer machine. I'm aware there are some titles that were not programmed for XP and later and sometimes suffer compatibility problems. But hearing your statement could indicate either "haven't tried enough software" but didn't find one that didn't work properly on XP and later or you haven't tried the ones that did have this OS compatibility issue yet since those titles may not have been of interest? I haven't located such exclusive 9X titles and there are a bunch in XP I haven't even tried either as most of my software was DOS based so I can't comment on which 9X/ME titles just didn't work in XP and later but if you had run into any I would have tried testing them on your behalf to see if they operated. I think the fun part for this was finally adding 98SE into my Multi OS setup. I now have DOS, 98SE, 2K, XP, Vista, W7, W10 working on both Z77 and Z170. I might add Win 3.11 for fun using the 98SE Boot Menu by adding DOS 5.0 to the list but since 9X pretty much runs everything from 3.X that I've seen and W8 and 8.1 didn't introduce any unique features breaking compatibility with W7 those later two can be eliminated to save space. I'd just add W10 reluctantly on the end just for the DX12 feature. One could remove Vista and W7 but and keep W10 but I am rather fond of Vista (originally I despised it and adored W7 then flip flopped) but W7 is just there due to compatibility / support similar to why people use XP over 2000. But I do agree it would be fun to push 98SE to its limits but I think for the most part the gains are rather small ever since Sandy Bridge from each generation and since it's only 1 core you're tapping into I'm not sure if spending all that money on the next chipset just to see how many more frames or points you get higher on the benchmark is worth it. And it's possible there might be a limit where any CPU performance gains have no discernible affect on the program. I think in your case the biggest obstacle was you had put too many limits on the MB choice. Anything smaller than ATX you're going to to run into restrictions unless you know for sure that motherboard and all the integrated peripherals have the proper 9X drivers. Sometimes a dual or triple slot graphics cards can overlap your required PCI slot. If more time could be spent in finding the right combination of PCI and PCIe slots and an ATX sized MB it probably would have not added more post install costs if you could have reused an older PCI sound card to avoid the need for working USB ports to test your USB sound card. On my older P4 I didn't use the USB ports much on 98SE since a serial mouse and PS/2 keyboard did the job. On the newer MBs if there is still one PS/2 port you don't need any USB card to use the USB mouse and USB keyboard. And on the list of motherboards I presented you can still use a serial mouse on the Com Port like the old school way and use a PS/2 keyboard and avoid USB altogether. After testing the network card I actually prefer to "not" have it installed as it added almost a "30" second delay before going to the desktop. Without the network card booting to 98SE takes a second or two and this saves an extra slot being occupied. If you do your internet surfing on 2000 or later and can use the onboard LAN.