Tommy Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 The only chipset drivers I used were LoneCrusader's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 @Nomen: yes, but he's using both RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch and SATA Patch, which is against your principles, IIRR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) The SATA patch is a must for full, proper functionality. Even with an IDE connector and set to IDE mode, it's still treated like SATA for some odd reason. So I needed that for sure. The RAM patch is only optional but since I want to use more than 1GB of RAM, I'm using it as well. What's strange is because I'm almost sure I tested Windows 98 on Revision 1.0 and it worked just fine without the SATA patch, so what they did to change the board between Revision 1.0 and 2.0, I really don't know. But I think some major improvements were made to this board, especially because there are different types of capacitors on this one as opposed to the last one. Maybe it was right on the line of the improved ones. I know of course that has nothing to do with SATA/IDE operation, but I do think there might've been some major changes that weren't really cosmetic, but deep within the board itself since except for the few new caps and located in different spots, the boards are visually identical. Edited February 9, 2016 by Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now