Should I Do This?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

A couple of months ago -- some of you may even remember this -- I
replaced the 1.9 GHz P4 in my P4T-E mbo with a 2.8 GHz P4 that I bought
from Powerleap: http://www.powerleap.com/

The new processor works fine and I've noticed an improvement in
performance. Nice. I ought to be happy.

But.

I have installed Windows XP Media Edition on a spare partition (I have a
multi-boot system). It's working OK, and I wanted to use it to run the
tuner on my ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 AGP video card. But WinXP's Media
Center wouldn't recognize the tuner. So I went to the ATI site and
discovered that in order for Windows to recognize and control the
All-In-Wonder's tuner, I needed special drivers that cost me $30
including shipping.

OK, so I bought the drivers from those cheapskates at ATI, but when I
tried to load them, the installation program told me that the
installation failed because my processor didn't support Hyperthreading.
Looks like my new processor is fast, but it's still old technology.
Sigh.

So I've been looking for new equipment that will support Hyperthreading.
Why? Why not be satisfied with what I have? I dunno. That's part of
the question I'm asking, I suppose. Maybe I should be happy with what I
have.

It looks like if I want hyperthreading, I'll need to replace both my
processor and my motherboard, which also means I'll need new DDR2 memory.

So I've been shopping and I've found (at Monarch Computer Systems) the
following:

Asus P5AD2 Premium Mbo for $269
Intel P4 Prescott 3.2 GHz 800 FSB processor with fan for $224
1 Gb Corsair DDR2 (667) PC-5400 RAM in two matched 512 Mb sticks for $365

And that totals $858.

Now it's not worth $858 to me just for the pride of watching WinXP Media
Edition run my video card's tuner. I already have ATI software that
will run the tuner. But I figure it might be worth it if I ended up
with a blazing fast machine that would enable me to manipulate, edit,
and compress video noticeably faster than I can now. I do a lot of work
with large video files.

I'm not wealthy, but I do have $858 to spend if I choose to. I just
wonder if it's worth it.

The new mbo will have only three PCI slots, but with onboard sound and
LAN, I can get by with just three (fax modem, SCSI, and HDTV Wonder).
And the new board would have USB 2, which would be an improvement over
the USB ports on my P4T-E. And it would have a few other neat features,
some of which I don't fully understand yet.

But apparently the new board will support only two IDE devices on one
cable. Can that be correct? That's what the manual I downloaded says,
I think. However, it looks like there are two IDE sockets. And the
manual says something about configuring SATA as standard IDE. So maybe
I could intall my three EIDE hard drives and one IDE DVD-R drive on the
new board just as I have them installed on my current board? Could I?
My 120 Gbyte and 250 Gbyte drives are both Western Digital and appear to
be ATA100. My Maxtor 40 Gbyte drive appears to be ATA133. I want these
drives to be in my new system. I need the space, and as best I can
tell, even if I bought three new Serial ATA drives, they couldn't hold
this much data.

I've never set up a RAID array. Hardly even know the principles behind
such a thing. Could I set up my current drives in a RAID array with
this new board?

I'm not an overclocker. So I worry that the P5AD2 has more capabilities
than I actually need.

That's about it. Those are the thoughts going through my head. Anybody
got any advice or words of caution? Thanks.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
25 answers Last reply
More about should this
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <hpOdnfWH-eY-5xTcRVn-pA@rcn.net>, Bill Anderson
    <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

    > A couple of months ago -- some of you may even remember this -- I
    > replaced the 1.9 GHz P4 in my P4T-E mbo with a 2.8 GHz P4 that I bought
    > from Powerleap: http://www.powerleap.com/
    >
    > The new processor works fine and I've noticed an improvement in
    > performance. Nice. I ought to be happy.
    >
    > But.
    >
    > I have installed Windows XP Media Edition on a spare partition (I have a
    > multi-boot system). It's working OK, and I wanted to use it to run the
    > tuner on my ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 AGP video card. But WinXP's Media
    > Center wouldn't recognize the tuner. So I went to the ATI site and
    > discovered that in order for Windows to recognize and control the
    > All-In-Wonder's tuner, I needed special drivers that cost me $30
    > including shipping.
    >
    > OK, so I bought the drivers from those cheapskates at ATI, but when I
    > tried to load them, the installation program told me that the
    > installation failed because my processor didn't support Hyperthreading.
    > Looks like my new processor is fast, but it's still old technology.
    > Sigh.
    >
    > So I've been looking for new equipment that will support Hyperthreading.
    > Why? Why not be satisfied with what I have? I dunno. That's part of
    > the question I'm asking, I suppose. Maybe I should be happy with what I
    > have.
    >
    > It looks like if I want hyperthreading, I'll need to replace both my
    > processor and my motherboard, which also means I'll need new DDR2 memory.
    >
    > So I've been shopping and I've found (at Monarch Computer Systems) the
    > following:
    >
    > Asus P5AD2 Premium Mbo for $269
    > Intel P4 Prescott 3.2 GHz 800 FSB processor with fan for $224
    > 1 Gb Corsair DDR2 (667) PC-5400 RAM in two matched 512 Mb sticks for $365
    >
    > And that totals $858.
    >
    > Now it's not worth $858 to me just for the pride of watching WinXP Media
    > Edition run my video card's tuner. I already have ATI software that
    > will run the tuner. But I figure it might be worth it if I ended up
    > with a blazing fast machine that would enable me to manipulate, edit,
    > and compress video noticeably faster than I can now. I do a lot of work
    > with large video files.
    >
    > I'm not wealthy, but I do have $858 to spend if I choose to. I just
    > wonder if it's worth it.
    >
    > The new mbo will have only three PCI slots, but with onboard sound and
    > LAN, I can get by with just three (fax modem, SCSI, and HDTV Wonder).
    > And the new board would have USB 2, which would be an improvement over
    > the USB ports on my P4T-E. And it would have a few other neat features,
    > some of which I don't fully understand yet.
    >
    > But apparently the new board will support only two IDE devices on one
    > cable. Can that be correct? That's what the manual I downloaded says,
    > I think. However, it looks like there are two IDE sockets. And the
    > manual says something about configuring SATA as standard IDE. So maybe
    > I could intall my three EIDE hard drives and one IDE DVD-R drive on the
    > new board just as I have them installed on my current board? Could I?
    > My 120 Gbyte and 250 Gbyte drives are both Western Digital and appear to
    > be ATA100. My Maxtor 40 Gbyte drive appears to be ATA133. I want these
    > drives to be in my new system. I need the space, and as best I can
    > tell, even if I bought three new Serial ATA drives, they couldn't hold
    > this much data.
    >
    > I've never set up a RAID array. Hardly even know the principles behind
    > such a thing. Could I set up my current drives in a RAID array with
    > this new board?
    >
    > I'm not an overclocker. So I worry that the P5AD2 has more capabilities
    > than I actually need.
    >
    > That's about it. Those are the thoughts going through my head. Anybody
    > got any advice or words of caution? Thanks.

    I would break the problem down into two pieces.

    1) Find a PCI tuner card that MCE understands and supports. I wouldn't
    have paid ATI money for software, instead investing in a different
    tuner. The idea being, the video card can evolve separate from
    the tuner, and I can shop for the best tuner (i.e. best output
    modes, for PVR purposes, or best output modes for uncompressed
    video, which may offer improved quality for post processing). A
    company selling a tuner alone, has more to gain from making it
    versatile/supported, then when it is bolted to the side of a
    gaming video card.
    2) Investigate the best way to manipulate, edit, and compress
    video. When it comes to hardware, there are some PCI cards
    that are used for special effects (with a co-processor for
    compression), that can provide some benefit. But many of the
    more exotic special effects are still done with the motherboard
    processor, so unfortunately, even though the PCI hardware
    is expensive, it doesn't solve the whole problem on its own.
    Check out rec.video.desktop and seek their advice.

    I cannot help but feel right now, that the 915/925 family is,
    itself, a dead end. Yes, it offers the LGA775 socket, and that
    aligns with Intel's mainstream plans. But, to me, that is all
    it offers right now. All that it does, is add the expense of
    conversion to SATA, PCI Express Video, DDR2 memory, and so on.
    You have a motherboard, with a compromise mix of PCI/PCI Express
    connectors, which is a problem if you run a bunch of special
    PCI cards for what you do.

    Intel gave us the stick, but they forgot the carrot.

    And, with the move to dual core processors, I'm not sure that
    in the future, people will want to upgrade to a dual core
    processor, only to have to re-buy all their application software,
    which will have to be coded to use multiple processors/threads.
    There hasn't been a pronounced move in that direction, even
    though the idea has been around for a while, so don't expect
    software that can use both processors in a dual core, any
    time soon. (Sure, you can use two separate programs to good
    effect, but to me that is not seamless - the user has to think
    about keeping both cores busy.)

    I guess my answer to you would be, buy a P4C800-E, some DDR
    memory (CAS3 is good enough), a Northwood processor (or whatever
    you can afford in a socket 478 processor, before they are completely
    gone from the market). That way, you'll have PCI slots,
    slightly cheaper memory etc. With two IDE connectors on the
    Southbridge, that is support for four drives right there.
    (Intel, on the new boards with ICH6, has four SATA and two
    IDE drives supported, to transition away from IDE.)

    If you are a cheapskate, you could even buy a lower speed
    processor, and overclock it.

    The idea behind overclocking, is not to run the core faster than
    the processor family can handle, but to enhance the speed the
    memory can be run at. Buying the slower speed processor is so
    you get a lower multiplier, and can run the FSB/memory faster.
    Visit http://www.cpudatabase.com/CPUdb and see what the average
    overclock is, for a given processor. For example, a 2.8C can be
    run at 3.4GHz, meaning the memory can be run DDR500 instead of
    DDR400.

    (Mostly) Newegg prices:

    Overclocker approach -
    P4C800-E Deluxe $179
    2.8C/FSB800/512KB ($191 retail w. HSF, $181 OEM w. no HSF, for a Zalman)
    2x512MB PC4000 DDR memory 3-4-4-8 or better $277
    Optional: Zalman 7000A/B AlCu quieter cooling $32
    Total = $669 for a 3.4GHz system

    Conservative approach -
    P4C800-E Deluxe $179
    3.2C/FSB800/512KB ($249 with HSF)
    2x512MB PC3200 DDR memory 3-3-3-8 or better 2x$96 (crucial.com)
    Total = $620 for a 3.2Ghz system

    There are other approaches, like P5P800, if you only want to
    go LGA775, and keep the rest of the legacy interfaces. I don't
    know how problem free this board has been, so you may want to
    investigate via Google or Abxzone forums.

    In all of the above, I haven't mentioned AMD. My reason for
    not mentioning them, is if you decide to buy a hardware video
    acceleration card, some companies don't support AMD platforms
    that well. If all you want to do is software video editing, it
    is possible an Athlon64 solution would work for you as well.
    After all, the AMD boards are still AGP/PCI/DDR, so they will
    allow reuse of your other hardware. No hyperthreading, of
    course, for any software installers stupid enough to
    actually mandate its use.

    A8V Deluxe (Athlon64, Socket 939, dual channel) $129
    Athlon64 3500+ retail with HSF $283
    2x512MB PC3200 DDR memory 3-3-3-8 or better 2x$96 (crucial.com)
    Total: $604

    HTH,
    Paul
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:hpOdnfWH-eY-5xTcRVn-pA@rcn.net...
    >A couple of months ago -- some of you may even remember this -- I replaced
    >the 1.9 GHz P4 in my P4T-E mbo with a 2.8 GHz P4 that I bought from
    >Powerleap: http://www.powerleap.com/
    >
    > The new processor works fine and I've noticed an improvement in
    > performance. Nice. I ought to be happy.
    >
    > But.
    >
    > I have installed Windows XP Media Edition on a spare partition (I have a
    > multi-boot system). It's working OK, and I wanted to use it to run the
    > tuner on my ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 AGP video card. But WinXP's Media
    > Center wouldn't recognize the tuner. So I went to the ATI site and
    > discovered that in order for Windows to recognize and control the
    > All-In-Wonder's tuner, I needed special drivers that cost me $30 including
    > shipping.
    >
    > OK, so I bought the drivers from those cheapskates at ATI, but when I
    > tried to load them, the installation program told me that the installation
    > failed because my processor didn't support Hyperthreading. Looks like my
    > new processor is fast, but it's still old technology. Sigh.
    >
    > So I've been looking for new equipment that will support Hyperthreading.
    > Why? Why not be satisfied with what I have? I dunno. That's part of the
    > question I'm asking, I suppose. Maybe I should be happy with what I have.
    >
    > It looks like if I want hyperthreading, I'll need to replace both my
    > processor and my motherboard, which also means I'll need new DDR2 memory.
    >
    > So I've been shopping and I've found (at Monarch Computer Systems) the
    > following:
    >
    > Asus P5AD2 Premium Mbo for $269
    > Intel P4 Prescott 3.2 GHz 800 FSB processor with fan for $224
    > 1 Gb Corsair DDR2 (667) PC-5400 RAM in two matched 512 Mb sticks for $365
    >
    > And that totals $858.
    >
    > Now it's not worth $858 to me just for the pride of watching WinXP Media
    > Edition run my video card's tuner. I already have ATI software that will
    > run the tuner. But I figure it might be worth it if I ended up with a
    > blazing fast machine that would enable me to manipulate, edit, and
    > compress video noticeably faster than I can now. I do a lot of work with
    > large video files.
    >
    > I'm not wealthy, but I do have $858 to spend if I choose to. I just
    > wonder if it's worth it.

    If you do, buy it from newegg and save some money --- $830 shipped.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    DonC wrote:
    > "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:hpOdnfWH-eY-5xTcRVn-pA@rcn.net...
    >
    >>A couple of months ago -- some of you may even remember this -- I replaced
    >>the 1.9 GHz P4 in my P4T-E mbo with a 2.8 GHz P4 that I bought from
    >>Powerleap: http://www.powerleap.com/
    >>
    >>The new processor works fine and I've noticed an improvement in
    >>performance. Nice. I ought to be happy.
    >>
    >>But.
    >>
    >>I have installed Windows XP Media Edition on a spare partition (I have a
    >>multi-boot system). It's working OK, and I wanted to use it to run the
    >>tuner on my ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 AGP video card. But WinXP's Media
    >>Center wouldn't recognize the tuner. So I went to the ATI site and
    >>discovered that in order for Windows to recognize and control the
    >>All-In-Wonder's tuner, I needed special drivers that cost me $30 including
    >>shipping.
    >>
    >>OK, so I bought the drivers from those cheapskates at ATI, but when I
    >>tried to load them, the installation program told me that the installation
    >>failed because my processor didn't support Hyperthreading. Looks like my
    >>new processor is fast, but it's still old technology. Sigh.
    >>
    >>So I've been looking for new equipment that will support Hyperthreading.
    >>Why? Why not be satisfied with what I have? I dunno. That's part of the
    >>question I'm asking, I suppose. Maybe I should be happy with what I have.
    >>
    >>It looks like if I want hyperthreading, I'll need to replace both my
    >>processor and my motherboard, which also means I'll need new DDR2 memory.
    >>
    >>So I've been shopping and I've found (at Monarch Computer Systems) the
    >>following:
    >>
    >>Asus P5AD2 Premium Mbo for $269
    >>Intel P4 Prescott 3.2 GHz 800 FSB processor with fan for $224
    >>1 Gb Corsair DDR2 (667) PC-5400 RAM in two matched 512 Mb sticks for $365
    >>
    >>And that totals $858.
    >>
    >>Now it's not worth $858 to me just for the pride of watching WinXP Media
    >>Edition run my video card's tuner. I already have ATI software that will
    >>run the tuner. But I figure it might be worth it if I ended up with a
    >>blazing fast machine that would enable me to manipulate, edit, and
    >>compress video noticeably faster than I can now. I do a lot of work with
    >>large video files.
    >>
    >>I'm not wealthy, but I do have $858 to spend if I choose to. I just
    >>wonder if it's worth it.
    >
    >
    > If you do, buy it from newegg and save some money --- $830 shipped.
    >
    >

    But Newegg doesn't have the mbo in stock. I checked there first.

    --
    Bill Anderson

    I am the Mighty Favog
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:CpmdnRbWe6_sFBTcRVn-pA@rcn.net...
    > DonC wrote:
    >> "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    >> news:hpOdnfWH-eY-5xTcRVn-pA@rcn.net...
    >>
    >>>A couple of months ago -- some of you may even remember this -- I
    >>>replaced the 1.9 GHz P4 in my P4T-E mbo with a 2.8 GHz P4 that I bought
    >>>from Powerleap: http://www.powerleap.com/
    >>>
    >>>The new processor works fine and I've noticed an improvement in
    >>>performance. Nice. I ought to be happy.
    >>>
    >>>But.
    >>>
    >>>I have installed Windows XP Media Edition on a spare partition (I have a
    >>>multi-boot system). It's working OK, and I wanted to use it to run the
    >>>tuner on my ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 AGP video card. But WinXP's Media
    >>>Center wouldn't recognize the tuner. So I went to the ATI site and
    >>>discovered that in order for Windows to recognize and control the
    >>>All-In-Wonder's tuner, I needed special drivers that cost me $30
    >>>including shipping.
    >>>
    >>>OK, so I bought the drivers from those cheapskates at ATI, but when I
    >>>tried to load them, the installation program told me that the
    >>>installation failed because my processor didn't support Hyperthreading.
    >>>Looks like my new processor is fast, but it's still old technology. Sigh.
    >>>
    >>>So I've been looking for new equipment that will support Hyperthreading.
    >>>Why? Why not be satisfied with what I have? I dunno. That's part of
    >>>the question I'm asking, I suppose. Maybe I should be happy with what I
    >>>have.
    >>>
    >>>It looks like if I want hyperthreading, I'll need to replace both my
    >>>processor and my motherboard, which also means I'll need new DDR2 memory.
    >>>
    >>>So I've been shopping and I've found (at Monarch Computer Systems) the
    >>>following:
    >>>
    >>>Asus P5AD2 Premium Mbo for $269
    >>>Intel P4 Prescott 3.2 GHz 800 FSB processor with fan for $224
    >>>1 Gb Corsair DDR2 (667) PC-5400 RAM in two matched 512 Mb sticks for $365
    >>>
    >>>And that totals $858.
    >>>
    >>>Now it's not worth $858 to me just for the pride of watching WinXP Media
    >>>Edition run my video card's tuner. I already have ATI software that will
    >>>run the tuner. But I figure it might be worth it if I ended up with a
    >>>blazing fast machine that would enable me to manipulate, edit, and
    >>>compress video noticeably faster than I can now. I do a lot of work with
    >>>large video files.
    >>>
    >>>I'm not wealthy, but I do have $858 to spend if I choose to. I just
    >>>wonder if it's worth it.
    >>
    >>
    >> If you do, buy it from newegg and save some money --- $830 shipped.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > But Newegg doesn't have the mbo in stock. I checked there first.

    Right you are. FWIW, they do have the P4 3.0 on special for $192 shipped.
    Is point 2 worth $32 more? : )
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    You should take this project right to the finish because you will forever be
    wondering if it could do better than it is.
    Money is only money and you can`t take it with you if you died tomorrow.
    Finish your project in a full and complete manner.


    "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:hpOdnfWH-eY-5xTcRVn-pA@rcn.net...
    > A couple of months ago -- some of you may even remember this -- I
    > replaced the 1.9 GHz P4 in my P4T-E mbo with a 2.8 GHz P4 that I bought
    > from Powerleap: http://www.powerleap.com/
    >
    > The new processor works fine and I've noticed an improvement in
    > performance. Nice. I ought to be happy.
    >
    > But.
    >
    > I have installed Windows XP Media Edition on a spare partition (I have a
    > multi-boot system). It's working OK, and I wanted to use it to run the
    > tuner on my ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 AGP video card. But WinXP's Media
    > Center wouldn't recognize the tuner. So I went to the ATI site and
    > discovered that in order for Windows to recognize and control the
    > All-In-Wonder's tuner, I needed special drivers that cost me $30
    > including shipping.
    >
    > OK, so I bought the drivers from those cheapskates at ATI, but when I
    > tried to load them, the installation program told me that the
    > installation failed because my processor didn't support Hyperthreading.
    > Looks like my new processor is fast, but it's still old technology.
    > Sigh.
    >
    > So I've been looking for new equipment that will support Hyperthreading.
    > Why? Why not be satisfied with what I have? I dunno. That's part of
    > the question I'm asking, I suppose. Maybe I should be happy with what I
    > have.
    >
    > It looks like if I want hyperthreading, I'll need to replace both my
    > processor and my motherboard, which also means I'll need new DDR2 memory.
    >
    > So I've been shopping and I've found (at Monarch Computer Systems) the
    > following:
    >
    > Asus P5AD2 Premium Mbo for $269
    > Intel P4 Prescott 3.2 GHz 800 FSB processor with fan for $224
    > 1 Gb Corsair DDR2 (667) PC-5400 RAM in two matched 512 Mb sticks for $365
    >
    > And that totals $858.
    >
    > Now it's not worth $858 to me just for the pride of watching WinXP Media
    > Edition run my video card's tuner. I already have ATI software that
    > will run the tuner. But I figure it might be worth it if I ended up
    > with a blazing fast machine that would enable me to manipulate, edit,
    > and compress video noticeably faster than I can now. I do a lot of work
    > with large video files.
    >
    > I'm not wealthy, but I do have $858 to spend if I choose to. I just
    > wonder if it's worth it.
    >
    > The new mbo will have only three PCI slots, but with onboard sound and
    > LAN, I can get by with just three (fax modem, SCSI, and HDTV Wonder).
    > And the new board would have USB 2, which would be an improvement over
    > the USB ports on my P4T-E. And it would have a few other neat features,
    > some of which I don't fully understand yet.
    >
    > But apparently the new board will support only two IDE devices on one
    > cable. Can that be correct? That's what the manual I downloaded says,
    > I think. However, it looks like there are two IDE sockets. And the
    > manual says something about configuring SATA as standard IDE. So maybe
    > I could intall my three EIDE hard drives and one IDE DVD-R drive on the
    > new board just as I have them installed on my current board? Could I?
    > My 120 Gbyte and 250 Gbyte drives are both Western Digital and appear to
    > be ATA100. My Maxtor 40 Gbyte drive appears to be ATA133. I want these
    > drives to be in my new system. I need the space, and as best I can
    > tell, even if I bought three new Serial ATA drives, they couldn't hold
    > this much data.
    >
    > I've never set up a RAID array. Hardly even know the principles behind
    > such a thing. Could I set up my current drives in a RAID array with
    > this new board?
    >
    > I'm not an overclocker. So I worry that the P5AD2 has more capabilities
    > than I actually need.
    >
    > That's about it. Those are the thoughts going through my head. Anybody
    > got any advice or words of caution? Thanks.
    >
    > --
    > Bill Anderson
    >
    > I am the Mighty Favog
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    <snip>

    > So I've been shopping and I've found (at Monarch Computer Systems) the
    > following:
    >
    > Asus P5AD2 Premium Mbo for $269
    > Intel P4 Prescott 3.2 GHz 800 FSB processor with fan for $224
    > 1 Gb Corsair DDR2 (667) PC-5400 RAM in two matched 512 Mb sticks for $365
    >
    > And that totals $858.

    Don't forget to add in a few hunder dollars worth of frustration when
    dealing with Monarch.

    If it all goes smooth, great, but if you got a problem expect to spend a few
    months dealing with them in trying to resolve the issue. I ordered a bunch
    of stuff from them back in August and I'm STILL waiting to get the order
    completed. When you call them they will tell you anything just to get you
    off the phone and then do whatever they feel like.

    Avoid Monarch at all costs.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Paul wrote:

    Thanks, Paul, and thanks to all the others who commented. Based on the
    responses, I've decided NOT to "do this." Like an idiot I hadn't even
    noticed that with the new mbo I'd even need a new video card. I'd been
    planning to use my AGP card from ATI which lets me output to either or
    both my monitor and my plasma screen TV which has monitor input (AIW
    9600). If I were to buy the new mbo it would almost be like starting
    all over with all new components. No thanks. I'll just forego Windows
    Media Edition. I don't need it after all.

    However, Paul, I'll keep thinking about your suggestion for a more
    modest setup. I just might go that direction. You spent a lot of time
    writing your response. I really do appreciate it.

    --
    Bill Anderson

    I am the Mighty Favog
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Paul wrote:
    > In article <hpOdnfWH-eY-5xTcRVn-pA@rcn.net>, Bill Anderson
    > <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    >

    >
    > Conservative approach -
    > P4C800-E Deluxe $179
    > 3.2C/FSB800/512KB ($249 with HSF)
    > 2x512MB PC3200 DDR memory 3-3-3-8 or better 2x$96 (crucial.com)
    > Total = $620 for a 3.2Ghz system
    >

    OK, Paul, all this arrived today, exactly what you recommended, from
    Newegg and Crucial. I shopped and checked and compared and
    double-checked and I frankly I couldn't come up with a better plan.

    So...if you hear back from me tonight, it worked! If you dont't hear
    back from me, well ...


    --
    Bill Anderson

    I am the Mighty Excited Favog
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:XqmdnS6QHLbiBw_cRVn-hQ@rcn.net...
    > Paul wrote:
    > > In article <hpOdnfWH-eY-5xTcRVn-pA@rcn.net>, Bill Anderson
    > > <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    > >
    >
    > >
    > > Conservative approach -
    > > P4C800-E Deluxe $179
    > > 3.2C/FSB800/512KB ($249 with HSF)
    > > 2x512MB PC3200 DDR memory 3-3-3-8 or better 2x$96 (crucial.com)
    > > Total = $620 for a 3.2Ghz system
    > >
    >
    > OK, Paul, all this arrived today, exactly what you recommended, from
    > Newegg and Crucial. I shopped and checked and compared and
    > double-checked and I frankly I couldn't come up with a better plan.
    >
    > So...if you hear back from me tonight, it worked! If you dont't hear
    > back from me, well ...
    >
    >

    Wow. That took quite a bit longer than I'd anticipated. The hardware is
    fine as it turns out, though I didn't think so at first. But I've spent
    about 12 hours just getting to the point that I can install WinXP and get on
    the Internet.

    I use a single physical drive with three partitions for my triple-boot
    system. Win98 on C:, WinXP on E: and I use D: for experimenting with other
    OS's like Linux and as it happens WinXP Media Edition recently. All my data
    files are on two other physical drives -- all Ultra DMA IDE, no SATA drives.

    Before I began putting the new system together I'd formatted C: and left it
    empty, and I'd left WinXP Media Edition and WinXP SP2 in their respective
    partitions untouched.

    Well when I'd installed all my hardware and turned on the system, Win98
    wouldn't even begin to load on C:. Win98 told me that there were no setup
    files. And WinXP would begin to load, but then I'd get an error message
    telling me that it had found "multiple disks that appeared as one disk, or a
    raw disk." What did that mean?

    Well, finally, after many hours of frustration playing with the BIOS and
    rearranging cables and making this a master and that a slave and over and
    over again, I booted with a trusty old WinME boot disk and ran FDISK (which
    would not run from the Win98 or WinXP installation disks) and saw that my
    drive and partitions were just fine -- just as I'd left them. And with the
    WinME boot, I could see the setup program on the Win98 disk. So I just ran
    it, and as Win98 began installing I got an error message about Drive D.
    Win98 didn't like the partition that had WinXP Media Edition installed in
    it. Something about LBA not being right.

    So I just formatted the partition that had WinXP Media Edition in it and
    voila -- the problems *seem* to have gone away. I still have two more
    drives to install on the secondary IDE channel. We'll see how that goes.

    But right now, with my system stripped of all unnecessary hardware, I've
    successfully installed Win98 and WinXP.

    Why am I typing all this? I'm so relieved I just had to tell somebody, I
    guess.

    Now back to work.

    Bill Anderson

    I am the Mighty Frustrated Favog
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:hrqdnW5MUIYFEQ7cRVn-uQ@rcn.net...
    >
    > "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:XqmdnS6QHLbiBw_cRVn-hQ@rcn.net...
    > > Paul wrote:
    > > > In article <hpOdnfWH-eY-5xTcRVn-pA@rcn.net>, Bill Anderson
    > > > <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > Conservative approach -
    > > > P4C800-E Deluxe $179
    > > > 3.2C/FSB800/512KB ($249 with HSF)
    > > > 2x512MB PC3200 DDR memory 3-3-3-8 or better 2x$96 (crucial.com)
    > > > Total = $620 for a 3.2Ghz system
    > > >
    > >
    > > OK, Paul, all this arrived today, exactly what you recommended, from
    > > Newegg and Crucial. I shopped and checked and compared and
    > > double-checked and I frankly I couldn't come up with a better plan.
    > >
    > > So...if you hear back from me tonight, it worked! If you dont't hear
    > > back from me, well ...
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Wow. That took quite a bit longer than I'd anticipated. The hardware is
    > fine as it turns out, though I didn't think so at first. But I've spent
    > about 12 hours just getting to the point that I can install WinXP and get
    on
    > the Internet.
    >
    > I use a single physical drive with three partitions for my triple-boot
    > system. Win98 on C:, WinXP on E: and I use D: for experimenting with
    other
    > OS's like Linux and as it happens WinXP Media Edition recently. All my
    data
    > files are on two other physical drives -- all Ultra DMA IDE, no SATA
    drives.
    >
    > Before I began putting the new system together I'd formatted C: and left
    it
    > empty, and I'd left WinXP Media Edition and WinXP SP2 in their respective
    > partitions untouched.
    >
    > Well when I'd installed all my hardware and turned on the system, Win98
    > wouldn't even begin to load on C:. Win98 told me that there were no setup
    > files. And WinXP would begin to load, but then I'd get an error message
    > telling me that it had found "multiple disks that appeared as one disk, or
    a
    > raw disk." What did that mean?
    >
    > Well, finally, after many hours of frustration playing with the BIOS and
    > rearranging cables and making this a master and that a slave and over and
    > over again, I booted with a trusty old WinME boot disk and ran FDISK
    (which
    > would not run from the Win98 or WinXP installation disks) and saw that my
    > drive and partitions were just fine -- just as I'd left them. And with
    the
    > WinME boot, I could see the setup program on the Win98 disk. So I just
    ran
    > it, and as Win98 began installing I got an error message about Drive D.
    > Win98 didn't like the partition that had WinXP Media Edition installed in
    > it. Something about LBA not being right.
    >
    > So I just formatted the partition that had WinXP Media Edition in it and
    > voila -- the problems *seem* to have gone away. I still have two more
    > drives to install on the secondary IDE channel. We'll see how that goes.
    >
    > But right now, with my system stripped of all unnecessary hardware, I've
    > successfully installed Win98 and WinXP.
    >
    > Why am I typing all this? I'm so relieved I just had to tell somebody, I
    > guess.
    >
    > Now back to work.
    >
    > Bill Anderson
    >
    > I am the Mighty Frustrated Favog
    >
    >
    >
    Still frustrated. I thought I had the problem licked, so I re-Fdisked and
    re-formatted the three partitions on my OS hard drive and tried to
    reinstall. Suddenly nothing would work anymore.

    I was running a triple-boot system on my P4T-E, and I want to duplicate it
    on my new P4C800 E Deluxe (described by Paul above). I had it working fine
    like this on the P4T-E:

    Three FAT32 partitions on the 40 gig Maxtor ATA 133 physical boot drive:

    A: 3.5" floppy
    C: Partition 0 - FAT32 Win98 (If you have Win98 on a multi-boot system, it
    must be C:.)
    D: A separate EIDE ATA100 WD 120 gig physical drive formatted NTFS and
    currently loaded with lots of data very very important to me. I have a
    reasonably recent backup.
    E: Partition 1 - FAT32 Win2K sometimes, WinXP Media Edition sometimes. Even
    Linux sometimes, though it wasn't FAT32 then. I used this partition just for
    experimenting.
    F: Partition 2 - FAT32 WinXP (default boot)
    G: External SCSI Zip Drive
    H: Internal SCSI CD-ROM drive
    I: Internal SCSI CD-RW drive
    J: Internal IDE DVD-RW drive. I can boot from this drive.
    K: A third separate EIDE physical drive WD ATA100 formatted NTFS (250 gig)
    and currently loaded with data -- mostly replacable video files.

    Remember -- all this mixing of FAT32 and NTFS and various operating systems
    worked great on the P4T-E. It was a robust system. Very very robust. My
    old system worked great. My new system .... argh. So far, anyway.

    Now ...

    When I try to install Win98, the DOS setup screen announces that it can't
    find the setup program on the disk and installation quits.

    When I try to install WinXP the blue setup screen appears and lots of files
    load and then the blue setup screen announces, "Setup has either detected
    multiple disks in your machine that are indistinguishable or detected raw
    disk(s). Setup has corrected the problem, but a reboot is required. Setup
    cannot continue. Press any key to exit. (Of course, when I reboot I get
    the same error).

    So how did I install an operating system to type this message? I cheated
    with Win98. I booted with an old WinME boot disk and from there I could see
    the Win98 setup program if I put the Win98 disk in the first CD-ROM drive
    (H:). So I ran Setup from H: and even though I got some complaints from
    Win98 including a few hang-ups during installation, I actually got Win98
    working on C: with ethernet and video drivers installed. So here I am,
    posting to Usenet with Outlook Express. Not my favorite news client, but it
    works in a pinch.

    I have set BIOS as follows:

    Onboard IDE Operate Mode: Compatible Mode P-ATA only. This is supposed to
    give me a master and slave on Primary IDE, and a master and slave on
    Secondary IDE. And in fact, all four of these devices show up in bios and
    they look like they're working fine. I've played around a good bit more
    with BIOS, but I've finally begun focusing only on this area as a possible
    cause of my problem. I can't find anything else that seems suspicious to
    me.

    On my old system I could boot from the first SCSI disk -- maybe even the
    other one, though I'm not sure about that. The new system recognizes that
    there is a bootable CD in the SCSI CD-ROM, -- it announces this at bootup --
    but it skips right over the disk. Won't boot.

    Everything I've described worked beautifully on the P4T-E. But not on the
    P4C800-E. What is different now? Do I need to flash bios, maybe? Any
    other ideas?

    Bill Anderson

    I am the Mighty Depressed Favog
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <M5adnSJcJ4C7yQncRVn-iw@rcn.net>, "Bill Anderson"
    <billanderson601@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Migrating OSes is painful. Many people would suggest installing
    from scratch. There are apparently some rules for install
    order of the Microsoft OSes, and even some combinations that
    don't mix. So, your experience is not surprising.

    One thing that worked for me (migrating just Win2K to my new system)
    was to replace the chipset IDE driver with the default Microsoft
    one. Once the OS is set up that way, install the new motherboard.
    As long as the default Microsoft driver will also work with the
    new motherboard, the system just might boot. It did for me.
    Before doing that, I would get a blue screen when Windows attempted
    to start using the driver that the old motherboard was using.
    So, the trick is to find an IDE driver that works with both
    the old and new system, and the default Microsoft IDE driver
    does that for many combinations of boards. (The only problem
    I couldn't seem to fix, is getting AGP texture acceleration to
    work. I had a new video card, but I don't think that contributed
    to whatever the problem was. I even tried using driver cleaners.
    A clean install on another disk fixed that.)

    Part of the boot process is done with INT 0x13 calls to the
    BIOS. Once the OS is ready to go, it switches over to using its
    own driver, and that is when you find out whether the IDE driver
    on the old install will work on the new one or not.

    The "compatible" setting is the most convenient setting to use
    for installing multiple OSes, at the expense of only being able
    to connect 4 disk drives to the Southbridge (of the 6 possible
    max). Switching the BIOS back and forth between "compatible"
    and "enhanced" would be painful and not worth it.

    I would say you've still got a long way to go, before you
    get your environment back the way it was. Installing the
    hardware is the easy part.

    Paul

    > "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:hrqdnW5MUIYFEQ7cRVn-uQ@rcn.net...
    > >
    > > "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    > > news:XqmdnS6QHLbiBw_cRVn-hQ@rcn.net...
    > > > Paul wrote:
    > > > > In article <hpOdnfWH-eY-5xTcRVn-pA@rcn.net>, Bill Anderson
    > > > > <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Conservative approach -
    > > > > P4C800-E Deluxe $179
    > > > > 3.2C/FSB800/512KB ($249 with HSF)
    > > > > 2x512MB PC3200 DDR memory 3-3-3-8 or better 2x$96 (crucial.com)
    > > > > Total = $620 for a 3.2Ghz system
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > OK, Paul, all this arrived today, exactly what you recommended, from
    > > > Newegg and Crucial. I shopped and checked and compared and
    > > > double-checked and I frankly I couldn't come up with a better plan.
    > > >
    > > > So...if you hear back from me tonight, it worked! If you dont't hear
    > > > back from me, well ...
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > Wow. That took quite a bit longer than I'd anticipated. The hardware is
    > > fine as it turns out, though I didn't think so at first. But I've spent
    > > about 12 hours just getting to the point that I can install WinXP and get
    > on
    > > the Internet.
    > >
    > > I use a single physical drive with three partitions for my triple-boot
    > > system. Win98 on C:, WinXP on E: and I use D: for experimenting with
    > other
    > > OS's like Linux and as it happens WinXP Media Edition recently. All my
    > data
    > > files are on two other physical drives -- all Ultra DMA IDE, no SATA
    > drives.
    > >
    > > Before I began putting the new system together I'd formatted C: and left
    > it
    > > empty, and I'd left WinXP Media Edition and WinXP SP2 in their respective
    > > partitions untouched.
    > >
    > > Well when I'd installed all my hardware and turned on the system, Win98
    > > wouldn't even begin to load on C:. Win98 told me that there were no setup
    > > files. And WinXP would begin to load, but then I'd get an error message
    > > telling me that it had found "multiple disks that appeared as one disk, or
    > a
    > > raw disk." What did that mean?
    > >
    > > Well, finally, after many hours of frustration playing with the BIOS and
    > > rearranging cables and making this a master and that a slave and over and
    > > over again, I booted with a trusty old WinME boot disk and ran FDISK
    > (which
    > > would not run from the Win98 or WinXP installation disks) and saw that my
    > > drive and partitions were just fine -- just as I'd left them. And with
    > the
    > > WinME boot, I could see the setup program on the Win98 disk. So I just
    > ran
    > > it, and as Win98 began installing I got an error message about Drive D.
    > > Win98 didn't like the partition that had WinXP Media Edition installed in
    > > it. Something about LBA not being right.
    > >
    > > So I just formatted the partition that had WinXP Media Edition in it and
    > > voila -- the problems *seem* to have gone away. I still have two more
    > > drives to install on the secondary IDE channel. We'll see how that goes.
    > >
    > > But right now, with my system stripped of all unnecessary hardware, I've
    > > successfully installed Win98 and WinXP.
    > >
    > > Why am I typing all this? I'm so relieved I just had to tell somebody, I
    > > guess.
    > >
    > > Now back to work.
    > >
    > > Bill Anderson
    > >
    > > I am the Mighty Frustrated Favog
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > Still frustrated. I thought I had the problem licked, so I re-Fdisked and
    > re-formatted the three partitions on my OS hard drive and tried to
    > reinstall. Suddenly nothing would work anymore.
    >
    > I was running a triple-boot system on my P4T-E, and I want to duplicate it
    > on my new P4C800 E Deluxe (described by Paul above). I had it working fine
    > like this on the P4T-E:
    >
    > Three FAT32 partitions on the 40 gig Maxtor ATA 133 physical boot drive:
    >
    > A: 3.5" floppy
    > C: Partition 0 - FAT32 Win98 (If you have Win98 on a multi-boot system, it
    > must be C:.)
    > D: A separate EIDE ATA100 WD 120 gig physical drive formatted NTFS and
    > currently loaded with lots of data very very important to me. I have a
    > reasonably recent backup.
    > E: Partition 1 - FAT32 Win2K sometimes, WinXP Media Edition sometimes. Even
    > Linux sometimes, though it wasn't FAT32 then. I used this partition just for
    > experimenting.
    > F: Partition 2 - FAT32 WinXP (default boot)
    > G: External SCSI Zip Drive
    > H: Internal SCSI CD-ROM drive
    > I: Internal SCSI CD-RW drive
    > J: Internal IDE DVD-RW drive. I can boot from this drive.
    > K: A third separate EIDE physical drive WD ATA100 formatted NTFS (250 gig)
    > and currently loaded with data -- mostly replacable video files.
    >
    > Remember -- all this mixing of FAT32 and NTFS and various operating systems
    > worked great on the P4T-E. It was a robust system. Very very robust. My
    > old system worked great. My new system .... argh. So far, anyway.
    >
    > Now ...
    >
    > When I try to install Win98, the DOS setup screen announces that it can't
    > find the setup program on the disk and installation quits.
    >
    > When I try to install WinXP the blue setup screen appears and lots of files
    > load and then the blue setup screen announces, "Setup has either detected
    > multiple disks in your machine that are indistinguishable or detected raw
    > disk(s). Setup has corrected the problem, but a reboot is required. Setup
    > cannot continue. Press any key to exit. (Of course, when I reboot I get
    > the same error).
    >
    > So how did I install an operating system to type this message? I cheated
    > with Win98. I booted with an old WinME boot disk and from there I could see
    > the Win98 setup program if I put the Win98 disk in the first CD-ROM drive
    > (H:). So I ran Setup from H: and even though I got some complaints from
    > Win98 including a few hang-ups during installation, I actually got Win98
    > working on C: with ethernet and video drivers installed. So here I am,
    > posting to Usenet with Outlook Express. Not my favorite news client, but it
    > works in a pinch.
    >
    > I have set BIOS as follows:
    >
    > Onboard IDE Operate Mode: Compatible Mode P-ATA only. This is supposed to
    > give me a master and slave on Primary IDE, and a master and slave on
    > Secondary IDE. And in fact, all four of these devices show up in bios and
    > they look like they're working fine. I've played around a good bit more
    > with BIOS, but I've finally begun focusing only on this area as a possible
    > cause of my problem. I can't find anything else that seems suspicious to
    > me.
    >
    > On my old system I could boot from the first SCSI disk -- maybe even the
    > other one, though I'm not sure about that. The new system recognizes that
    > there is a bootable CD in the SCSI CD-ROM, -- it announces this at bootup --
    > but it skips right over the disk. Won't boot.
    >
    > Everything I've described worked beautifully on the P4T-E. But not on the
    > P4C800-E. What is different now? Do I need to flash bios, maybe? Any
    > other ideas?
    >
    > Bill Anderson
    >
    > I am the Mighty Depressed Favog
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
    news:nospam-1211040909040001@192.168.1.177...
    > In article <M5adnSJcJ4C7yQncRVn-iw@rcn.net>, "Bill Anderson"
    > <billanderson601@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > Migrating OSes is painful. Many people would suggest installing
    > from scratch.

    Thanks for the respose, Paul. But installing from scratch is exactly what
    I'm doing. I'm trying to install on freshly Fdisked and formatted
    partitions.

    After sleeping on it I've begun to wonder if I shouldn't focus on why I
    can't boot from my SCSI CD-ROM. Any ideas why that would have changed from
    the P4T-E to the P4C800-E? The SCSI card reports there's a bootable disk in
    the drive, but it doesn't boot from it.

    Bill Anderson

    There are apparently some rules for install
    > order of the Microsoft OSes, and even some combinations that
    > don't mix. So, your experience is not surprising.
    >
    > One thing that worked for me (migrating just Win2K to my new system)
    > was to replace the chipset IDE driver with the default Microsoft
    > one. Once the OS is set up that way, install the new motherboard.
    > As long as the default Microsoft driver will also work with the
    > new motherboard, the system just might boot. It did for me.
    > Before doing that, I would get a blue screen when Windows attempted
    > to start using the driver that the old motherboard was using.
    > So, the trick is to find an IDE driver that works with both
    > the old and new system, and the default Microsoft IDE driver
    > does that for many combinations of boards. (The only problem
    > I couldn't seem to fix, is getting AGP texture acceleration to
    > work. I had a new video card, but I don't think that contributed
    > to whatever the problem was. I even tried using driver cleaners.
    > A clean install on another disk fixed that.)
    >
    > Part of the boot process is done with INT 0x13 calls to the
    > BIOS. Once the OS is ready to go, it switches over to using its
    > own driver, and that is when you find out whether the IDE driver
    > on the old install will work on the new one or not.
    >
    > The "compatible" setting is the most convenient setting to use
    > for installing multiple OSes, at the expense of only being able
    > to connect 4 disk drives to the Southbridge (of the 6 possible
    > max). Switching the BIOS back and forth between "compatible"
    > and "enhanced" would be painful and not worth it.
    >
    > I would say you've still got a long way to go, before you
    > get your environment back the way it was. Installing the
    > hardware is the easy part.
    >
    > Paul
    >
    > > "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > > news:hrqdnW5MUIYFEQ7cRVn-uQ@rcn.net...
    > > >
    > > > "Bill Anderson" <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    message
    > > > news:XqmdnS6QHLbiBw_cRVn-hQ@rcn.net...
    > > > > Paul wrote:
    > > > > > In article <hpOdnfWH-eY-5xTcRVn-pA@rcn.net>, Bill Anderson
    > > > > > <billanderson601@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Conservative approach -
    > > > > > P4C800-E Deluxe $179
    > > > > > 3.2C/FSB800/512KB ($249 with HSF)
    > > > > > 2x512MB PC3200 DDR memory 3-3-3-8 or better 2x$96 (crucial.com)
    > > > > > Total = $620 for a 3.2Ghz system
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > OK, Paul, all this arrived today, exactly what you recommended, from
    > > > > Newegg and Crucial. I shopped and checked and compared and
    > > > > double-checked and I frankly I couldn't come up with a better plan.
    > > > >
    > > > > So...if you hear back from me tonight, it worked! If you dont't
    hear
    > > > > back from me, well ...
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Wow. That took quite a bit longer than I'd anticipated. The hardware
    is
    > > > fine as it turns out, though I didn't think so at first. But I've
    spent
    > > > about 12 hours just getting to the point that I can install WinXP and
    get
    > > on
    > > > the Internet.
    > > >
    > > > I use a single physical drive with three partitions for my triple-boot
    > > > system. Win98 on C:, WinXP on E: and I use D: for experimenting with
    > > other
    > > > OS's like Linux and as it happens WinXP Media Edition recently. All
    my
    > > data
    > > > files are on two other physical drives -- all Ultra DMA IDE, no SATA
    > > drives.
    > > >
    > > > Before I began putting the new system together I'd formatted C: and
    left
    > > it
    > > > empty, and I'd left WinXP Media Edition and WinXP SP2 in their
    respective
    > > > partitions untouched.
    > > >
    > > > Well when I'd installed all my hardware and turned on the system,
    Win98
    > > > wouldn't even begin to load on C:. Win98 told me that there were no
    setup
    > > > files. And WinXP would begin to load, but then I'd get an error
    message
    > > > telling me that it had found "multiple disks that appeared as one
    disk, or
    > > a
    > > > raw disk." What did that mean?
    > > >
    > > > Well, finally, after many hours of frustration playing with the BIOS
    and
    > > > rearranging cables and making this a master and that a slave and over
    and
    > > > over again, I booted with a trusty old WinME boot disk and ran FDISK
    > > (which
    > > > would not run from the Win98 or WinXP installation disks) and saw that
    my
    > > > drive and partitions were just fine -- just as I'd left them. And
    with
    > > the
    > > > WinME boot, I could see the setup program on the Win98 disk. So I
    just
    > > ran
    > > > it, and as Win98 began installing I got an error message about Drive
    D.
    > > > Win98 didn't like the partition that had WinXP Media Edition installed
    in
    > > > it. Something about LBA not being right.
    > > >
    > > > So I just formatted the partition that had WinXP Media Edition in it
    and
    > > > voila -- the problems *seem* to have gone away. I still have two more
    > > > drives to install on the secondary IDE channel. We'll see how that
    goes.
    > > >
    > > > But right now, with my system stripped of all unnecessary hardware,
    I've
    > > > successfully installed Win98 and WinXP.
    > > >
    > > > Why am I typing all this? I'm so relieved I just had to tell
    somebody, I
    > > > guess.
    > > >
    > > > Now back to work.
    > > >
    > > > Bill Anderson
    > > >
    > > > I am the Mighty Frustrated Favog
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > Still frustrated. I thought I had the problem licked, so I re-Fdisked
    and
    > > re-formatted the three partitions on my OS hard drive and tried to
    > > reinstall. Suddenly nothing would work anymore.
    > >
    > > I was running a triple-boot system on my P4T-E, and I want to duplicate
    it
    > > on my new P4C800 E Deluxe (described by Paul above). I had it working
    fine
    > > like this on the P4T-E:
    > >
    > > Three FAT32 partitions on the 40 gig Maxtor ATA 133 physical boot drive:
    > >
    > > A: 3.5" floppy
    > > C: Partition 0 - FAT32 Win98 (If you have Win98 on a multi-boot system,
    it
    > > must be C:.)
    > > D: A separate EIDE ATA100 WD 120 gig physical drive formatted NTFS and
    > > currently loaded with lots of data very very important to me. I have a
    > > reasonably recent backup.
    > > E: Partition 1 - FAT32 Win2K sometimes, WinXP Media Edition sometimes.
    Even
    > > Linux sometimes, though it wasn't FAT32 then. I used this partition just
    for
    > > experimenting.
    > > F: Partition 2 - FAT32 WinXP (default boot)
    > > G: External SCSI Zip Drive
    > > H: Internal SCSI CD-ROM drive
    > > I: Internal SCSI CD-RW drive
    > > J: Internal IDE DVD-RW drive. I can boot from this drive.
    > > K: A third separate EIDE physical drive WD ATA100 formatted NTFS (250
    gig)
    > > and currently loaded with data -- mostly replacable video files.
    > >
    > > Remember -- all this mixing of FAT32 and NTFS and various operating
    systems
    > > worked great on the P4T-E. It was a robust system. Very very robust.
    My
    > > old system worked great. My new system .... argh. So far, anyway.
    > >
    > > Now ...
    > >
    > > When I try to install Win98, the DOS setup screen announces that it
    can't
    > > find the setup program on the disk and installation quits.
    > >
    > > When I try to install WinXP the blue setup screen appears and lots of
    files
    > > load and then the blue setup screen announces, "Setup has either
    detected
    > > multiple disks in your machine that are indistinguishable or detected
    raw
    > > disk(s). Setup has corrected the problem, but a reboot is required.
    Setup
    > > cannot continue. Press any key to exit. (Of course, when I reboot I
    get
    > > the same error).
    > >
    > > So how did I install an operating system to type this message? I
    cheated
    > > with Win98. I booted with an old WinME boot disk and from there I could
    see
    > > the Win98 setup program if I put the Win98 disk in the first CD-ROM
    drive
    > > (H:). So I ran Setup from H: and even though I got some complaints from
    > > Win98 including a few hang-ups during installation, I actually got Win98
    > > working on C: with ethernet and video drivers installed. So here I am,
    > > posting to Usenet with Outlook Express. Not my favorite news client,
    but it
    > > works in a pinch.
    > >
    > > I have set BIOS as follows:
    > >
    > > Onboard IDE Operate Mode: Compatible Mode P-ATA only. This is supposed
    to
    > > give me a master and slave on Primary IDE, and a master and slave on
    > > Secondary IDE. And in fact, all four of these devices show up in bios
    and
    > > they look like they're working fine. I've played around a good bit more
    > > with BIOS, but I've finally begun focusing only on this area as a
    possible
    > > cause of my problem. I can't find anything else that seems suspicious
    to
    > > me.
    > >
    > > On my old system I could boot from the first SCSI disk -- maybe even the
    > > other one, though I'm not sure about that. The new system recognizes
    that
    > > there is a bootable CD in the SCSI CD-ROM, -- it announces this at
    bootup --
    > > but it skips right over the disk. Won't boot.
    > >
    > > Everything I've described worked beautifully on the P4T-E. But not on
    the
    > > P4C800-E. What is different now? Do I need to flash bios, maybe? Any
    > > other ideas?
    > >
    > > Bill Anderson
    > >
    > > I am the Mighty Depressed Favog
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Paul wrote:

    > Migrating OSes is painful. Many people would suggest installing
    > from scratch. There are apparently some rules for install
    > order of the Microsoft OSes, and even some combinations that
    > don't mix. So, your experience is not surprising.
    >
    > One thing that worked for me (migrating just Win2K to my new system)
    > was to replace the chipset IDE driver with the default Microsoft
    > one. Once the OS is set up that way, install the new motherboard.
    > As long as the default Microsoft driver will also work with the
    > new motherboard, the system just might boot. It did for me.
    > Before doing that, I would get a blue screen when Windows attempted
    > to start using the driver that the old motherboard was using.
    > So, the trick is to find an IDE driver that works with both
    > the old and new system, and the default Microsoft IDE driver
    > does that for many combinations of boards. (The only problem
    > I couldn't seem to fix, is getting AGP texture acceleration to
    > work. I had a new video card, but I don't think that contributed
    > to whatever the problem was. I even tried using driver cleaners.
    > A clean install on another disk fixed that.)

    Microsoft's stance is that you *must* re-install the OS from scratch
    when installing a new MB. The normally recommended way of ignoring MS
    and doing it without a re-install is to delete the enum (under
    hkey_local_machine) section of the registry (which deletes all
    hardware information) before the MB swap which forces Windows to
    redetect the hardware. (This way it would start off with the native
    windows ide driver).

    I used to prefer a variation of this method, by setting up a second
    hardware profile (it can be a copy of the first). Now when you install
    the MB and re-boot, the boot routine asks what profile to use and
    gives a third option (none of the above). If you choose the latter,
    Windows is again forced redetect the hardware. I also used to prefer
    to uninstall the video driver before the MB install (even if not
    changing the video setup) ... video drivers are too touchy by half.

    If you simply swap the MB without making any changes, you really are
    asking for trouble. Some people claim to have got it to work, but
    generally after chasing drivers around for a week. The chances are you
    will have problems and some of them may not be immediately apparent.

    These days, I look at a MB swap as an housekeeping opportunity and
    re-install the OS from scratch anyway. I go through and list all the
    apps and utilities to se what I can get rid of (always more than 50%).
    Dig up all the latest drivers etc. and start of with a nice clean,
    light system.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "WoofWoof" <oftenbark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:4194CEF4.86F2495D@hotmail.com...
    >
    >
    > These days, I look at a MB swap as an housekeeping opportunity and
    > re-install the OS from scratch anyway. I go through and list all the
    > apps and utilities to se what I can get rid of (always more than 50%).
    > Dig up all the latest drivers etc. and start of with a nice clean,
    > light system.

    Thanks for the response Woofwoof. The frustrating part is that I agree with
    everything you've said and I'm really and truly not trying to migrate an OS
    from one mbo to another. I'm trying to install on a freshly Fdisked and
    formatted hard drive.

    In the BIOS I'm given the option of using only three boot devices, and I can
    put them in any order. Floppy drive, Pioneer IDE DVD-RW, and C: partition
    on the Maxtor. That's the order they're in now.

    I can boot a Win98 or WinXP installation disk from the Pioneer, but I get
    the funky errors from the installation programs that I mentioned earlier. I
    was able to install Win98 only by putting it in a SCSI CD-ROM drive (where
    it would NOT boot), booting with a WinME boot floppy, switching to the
    CD-ROM from there, and finally running setup.exe.

    Overnight I have dreamed up a couple of other things to try. Both involve
    experimenting with boot order in BIOS. And I really want to figure out why
    I can't boot from my internal SCSI CD-ROM now, when I could with the other
    mbo.

    Thanks again. If you have any further ideas, I'm all ears.

    Bill Anderson
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <pNOdnWCTt4cgUAncRVn-1w@rcn.net>, "Bill Anderson"
    <billanderson601@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
    > news:nospam-1211040909040001@192.168.1.177...
    > > In article <M5adnSJcJ4C7yQncRVn-iw@rcn.net>, "Bill Anderson"
    > > <billanderson601@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > Migrating OSes is painful. Many people would suggest installing
    > > from scratch.
    >
    > Thanks for the respose, Paul. But installing from scratch is exactly what
    > I'm doing. I'm trying to install on freshly Fdisked and formatted
    > partitions.
    >
    > After sleeping on it I've begun to wonder if I shouldn't focus on why I
    > can't boot from my SCSI CD-ROM. Any ideas why that would have changed from
    > the P4T-E to the P4C800-E? The SCSI card reports there's a bootable disk in
    > the drive, but it doesn't boot from it.
    >
    > Bill Anderson
    >
    Sorry, I thought you were trying to get an existing install to boot.

    Does your SCSI card's BIOS show up on the boot screen ?

    I think the BIOS option:

    "Add ON ROM Display Mode" [Force BIOS] (in Boot Settings)

    is supposed to allow devices with boot ROMs to load, like your SCSI
    card should have if it supports booting. Asus level of support for
    third party hardware isn't what it used to be (seemed to be better
    in the era when they had SCSI chips built into some of the boards).

    The BIOS has the above setting as the default, and that should
    cause the BIOS code for the Promise controller and your SCSI
    card, to show their interfaces during the boot. If you aren't using
    the Promise 20378 controller, try disabling it, and see if that
    makes a difference to what happens to SCSI.

    Primary IDE Master 40GB Maxtor drive (3 boot partitions)
    Slave 120GB WD drive (data)
    Secondary IDE Master 250GB WD drive (video)
    Slave IDE DVD-RW
    SCSI Zip Drive
    SCSI CDROM
    SCSI CDRW

    If that is what you've got, then you should be able to
    disable the Promise controller. Apparently, when multiple
    controllers have ROMs to load, there can be a clash in the
    use of low memory (640K) for the RAM that those ROMs need
    for data buffering. Disabling the Boot ROM on all but one
    controller can sometimes fix that problem, but on desktop
    motherboards there frequently isn't the degree of control
    desired in the BIOS to do that. My suggestion to disable
    the Promise controller not only stops its boot ROM from
    loading, but I think it also stops the OS from using the
    chip later. There are a few server boards, where there is
    a BIOS option that optimizes low memory usage, so more
    memory is available for the Boot ROMs RAM requirements.

    HTH,
    Paul
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
    news:nospam-1211041524200001@192.168.1.177...
    > In article <pNOdnWCTt4cgUAncRVn-1w@rcn.net>, "Bill Anderson"
    > <billanderson601@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
    > > news:nospam-1211040909040001@192.168.1.177...
    > > > In article <M5adnSJcJ4C7yQncRVn-iw@rcn.net>, "Bill Anderson"
    > > > <billanderson601@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Migrating OSes is painful. Many people would suggest installing
    > > > from scratch.
    > >
    > > Thanks for the respose, Paul. But installing from scratch is exactly
    what
    > > I'm doing. I'm trying to install on freshly Fdisked and formatted
    > > partitions.
    > >
    > > After sleeping on it I've begun to wonder if I shouldn't focus on why I
    > > can't boot from my SCSI CD-ROM. Any ideas why that would have changed
    from
    > > the P4T-E to the P4C800-E? The SCSI card reports there's a bootable
    disk in
    > > the drive, but it doesn't boot from it.
    > >
    > > Bill Anderson
    > >
    > Sorry, I thought you were trying to get an existing install to boot.
    >
    > Does your SCSI card's BIOS show up on the boot screen ?

    As usual, Paul, you've identified the real problem No, I believe I am no
    longer seeing the "SCSI BIOS not loaded" message I used to see when there
    was not a bootable CD in the SCSI CD-ROM drive. And when a bootable disk is
    in the CD-ROM drive, I do see "Bootable media in drive" or something like
    that, but the system doesn't boot from the drive.

    Now here's something interesting (to me anyway). Today in an effort to
    simplify, simplify, I removed the SCSI controller from the PCI slot, and
    voila! The crazy problems I'd been having went away. With no SCSI devices
    attached, the Win98 installation disk could see setup.exe with no problem at
    all, so I reformatted C: and reinstalled Win98 and here I am typing this in
    Outlook Express, as pretty as you please. I have only one device on Primary
    IDE (the Maxtor with three partitions) and one device on Secondary IDE (the
    IDE DVD-RW). Installing Win98 went about as smoothly as installing Win98
    usually goes -- only a few oddities. Anyway, it's working fine. It's like
    the SCSI DVD drives and maybe even the scanners were confusing the system.
    (I believe I mentioned the BIOS were recognizing the scanners as hard
    drives.)

    So what's the deal with SCSI? My controller card's bios chip indicates it's
    Adaptec from 1997. Should I invest in some sort of new SCSI controller?

    >
    > I think the BIOS option:
    >
    > "Add ON ROM Display Mode" [Force BIOS] (in Boot Settings)

    I have it set to "force BIOS." For a while I tried "Keep Current" but that
    seemed to make no difference.

    >
    > is supposed to allow devices with boot ROMs to load, like your SCSI
    > card should have if it supports booting.

    It did support booting on the P4T-E. But it seems not to support booting
    now.

    Asus level of support for
    > third party hardware isn't what it used to be (seemed to be better
    > in the era when they had SCSI chips built into some of the boards).
    >
    > The BIOS has the above setting as the default, and that should
    > cause the BIOS code for the Promise controller and your SCSI
    > card, to show their interfaces during the boot. If you aren't using
    > the Promise 20378 controller, try disabling it, and see if that
    > makes a difference to what happens to SCSI.

    I disabled the Promise controller long ago. Got tired of watching it look
    for drives it couldn't find.

    >
    > Primary IDE Master 40GB Maxtor drive (3 boot partitions)
    > Slave 120GB WD drive (data)
    > Secondary IDE Master 250GB WD drive (video)
    > Slave IDE DVD-RW
    > SCSI Zip Drive
    > SCSI CDROM
    > SCSI CDRW
    >
    > If that is what you've got, then you should be able to
    > disable the Promise controller. Apparently, when multiple
    > controllers have ROMs to load, there can be a clash in the
    > use of low memory (640K) for the RAM that those ROMs need
    > for data buffering.

    A couple of times when installing Win98 I got a "not enough memory" message,
    so I just rebooted and the problem didn't show up the next time through.

    Disabling the Boot ROM on all but one
    > controller can sometimes fix that problem, but on desktop
    > motherboards there frequently isn't the degree of control
    > desired in the BIOS to do that.

    Hmmm...disable the boot ROM? I think I haven't seen that option.

    My suggestion to disable
    > the Promise controller not only stops its boot ROM from
    > loading, but I think it also stops the OS from using the
    > chip later. There are a few server boards, where there is
    > a BIOS option that optimizes low memory usage, so more
    > memory is available for the Boot ROMs RAM requirements.

    Hmmm...I'll try to digest that and see if I can find something that
    corresponds in BIOS.

    Once again, many thanks for the feedback.

    Bill Anderson
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Bill Anderson wrote:
    >
    > "WoofWoof" <oftenbark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:4194CEF4.86F2495D@hotmail.com...
    > >
    > >
    > > These days, I look at a MB swap as an housekeeping opportunity and
    > > re-install the OS from scratch anyway. I go through and list all the
    > > apps and utilities to se what I can get rid of (always more than 50%).
    > > Dig up all the latest drivers etc. and start of with a nice clean,
    > > light system.
    >
    > Thanks for the response Woofwoof. The frustrating part is that I agree with
    > everything you've said and I'm really and truly not trying to migrate an OS
    > from one mbo to another. I'm trying to install on a freshly Fdisked and
    > formatted hard drive.

    No problem, Bill ... I did realise that. My comment was really a
    follow up to what paul had said.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Op Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:13:23 -0500 schreef Bill Anderson:

    > "WoofWoof" <oftenbark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:4194CEF4.86F2495D@hotmail.com...
    >>
    >>
    >> These days, I look at a MB swap as an housekeeping opportunity and
    >> re-install the OS from scratch anyway. I go through and list all the
    >> apps and utilities to se what I can get rid of (always more than 50%).
    >> Dig up all the latest drivers etc. and start of with a nice clean,
    >> light system.
    >
    > Thanks for the response Woofwoof. The frustrating part is that I agree with
    > everything you've said and I'm really and truly not trying to migrate an OS
    > from one mbo to another. I'm trying to install on a freshly Fdisked and
    > formatted hard drive.
    >
    > In the BIOS I'm given the option of using only three boot devices, and I can
    > put them in any order. Floppy drive, Pioneer IDE DVD-RW, and C: partition
    > on the Maxtor. That's the order they're in now.
    >
    > I can boot a Win98 or WinXP installation disk from the Pioneer, but I get
    > the funky errors from the installation programs that I mentioned earlier. I
    > was able to install Win98 only by putting it in a SCSI CD-ROM drive (where
    > it would NOT boot), booting with a WinME boot floppy, switching to the
    > CD-ROM from there, and finally running setup.exe.
    >
    > Overnight I have dreamed up a couple of other things to try. Both involve
    > experimenting with boot order in BIOS. And I really want to figure out why
    > I can't boot from my internal SCSI CD-ROM now, when I could with the other
    > mbo.
    >
    > Thanks again. If you have any further ideas, I'm all ears.
    >
    > Bill Anderson

    If your P4C800 is like my P4P800, then there are two menu options/screens
    in the BIOS involved in setting the boot devices. One allows you to pick
    which devices you want to use in the boot sequence - but you can't set the
    order here. The second one allows you to set the order, but you can use
    only the devices selected in the other screen. If you haven't changed the
    standard device settings, you only get your first hard drive, your first
    cd-drive and the floppy to choose from when setting the boot sequence.

    Some of the error messages you're seeing might be caused by the presence of
    your largest hard drive - most operating systems won't recognise hard
    drives that large (I don't remember the exact maximum size, but somewehere
    around 132 Gb). Even XP needs at least SP1 before it will recognize discs
    larger that that.

    Wim
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Wim Zefat" <"wimz[nospam]"@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
    news:n1kljim2b7hp$.id5r1t3dr4fk.dlg@40tude.net...
    > Op Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:13:23 -0500 schreef Bill Anderson:
    >
    > > "WoofWoof" <oftenbark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:4194CEF4.86F2495D@hotmail.com...
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> These days, I look at a MB swap as an housekeeping opportunity and
    > >> re-install the OS from scratch anyway. I go through and list all the
    > >> apps and utilities to se what I can get rid of (always more than 50%).
    > >> Dig up all the latest drivers etc. and start of with a nice clean,
    > >> light system.
    > >
    > > Thanks for the response Woofwoof. The frustrating part is that I agree
    with
    > > everything you've said and I'm really and truly not trying to migrate an
    OS
    > > from one mbo to another. I'm trying to install on a freshly Fdisked and
    > > formatted hard drive.
    > >
    > > In the BIOS I'm given the option of using only three boot devices, and I
    can
    > > put them in any order. Floppy drive, Pioneer IDE DVD-RW, and C:
    partition
    > > on the Maxtor. That's the order they're in now.
    > >
    > > I can boot a Win98 or WinXP installation disk from the Pioneer, but I
    get
    > > the funky errors from the installation programs that I mentioned
    earlier. I
    > > was able to install Win98 only by putting it in a SCSI CD-ROM drive
    (where
    > > it would NOT boot), booting with a WinME boot floppy, switching to the
    > > CD-ROM from there, and finally running setup.exe.
    > >
    > > Overnight I have dreamed up a couple of other things to try. Both
    involve
    > > experimenting with boot order in BIOS. And I really want to figure out
    why
    > > I can't boot from my internal SCSI CD-ROM now, when I could with the
    other
    > > mbo.
    > >
    > > Thanks again. If you have any further ideas, I'm all ears.
    > >
    > > Bill Anderson
    >
    > If your P4C800 is like my P4P800, then there are two menu options/screens
    > in the BIOS involved in setting the boot devices. One allows you to pick
    > which devices you want to use in the boot sequence - but you can't set the
    > order here. The second one allows you to set the order, but you can use
    > only the devices selected in the other screen.

    I think I know what you mean. Is the other menu screen titled "Hard
    Drives?" This one is strange. It lists all my hard drives (with the Maxtor
    boot drive as #1) plus my SCSI flatbed scanner and my SCSI slide scanner.
    At first it also listed my SCSI CD-ROM drive but not my SCSI CD-RW drive.
    Aha! I said, and I moved the CDROM to the top of the hard drive list. Then
    it appeared as one of the three boot devices I could choose, and I moved it
    to the top of that list. Trouble is, the other two boot devices were the
    floppy and the IDE DVD-RW. No hard drives to put on the list. I saved that
    configuration and tried to boot with nothing in any removable media drive --
    just boot from the hard drive -- and sure enough, since the Maxtor wasn't in
    the list of three, the computer could find no hard drive and thus no
    bootable media. Well, a computer that won't boot from its hard drive is no
    good, so I went back to the bios and found the SCSI CDROM had disappeared as
    an option and the menu of three was now showing a scanner as a boot device.
    Argh. So I put things back the way they had been before.

    As I said, very strange. Also -- if you're talking about *another* menu
    screen, not the "hard drives" screen, then please tell me more. I haven't
    found another.

    By the way, I have flashed the bios to Rev. 1019, which is the latest
    version on the Asus site.

    Bill Anderson

    If you haven't changed the
    > standard device settings, you only get your first hard drive, your first
    > cd-drive and the floppy to choose from when setting the boot sequence.
    >
    > Some of the error messages you're seeing might be caused by the presence
    of
    > your largest hard drive - most operating systems won't recognise hard
    > drives that large (I don't remember the exact maximum size, but somewehere
    > around 132 Gb). Even XP needs at least SP1 before it will recognize discs
    > larger that that.
    >
    > Wim
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <yZednQF89ZLorQjcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>, "Bill Anderson"
    <billanderson601@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    > A couple of times when installing Win98 I got a "not enough memory" message,
    > so I just rebooted and the problem didn't show up the next time through.
    >
    <<snip>>
    >
    > Bill Anderson

    You have 2x512MB of memory, and are booting Win98.

    In my experience, Win98 is only truly happy with 512MB of
    memory. It is supposed to be usable with from 512MB to 1GB,
    depending on how much address space you are burning up via
    the video card and AGP slot (AGP aperture), but in some experiments
    I did with one of my older systems, it only truly behaved
    well at 512MB (zero anomalies, zero crashes, no funny slowdowns
    or misbehavior).

    There are two fixes for the "out of memory" problem with Win98.
    One fix is the equivalent of physically removing some of the
    memory. That fix will allow you to leave 2x512MB in the machine,
    but when Win98 is booted, the fix will cause the OS to ignore
    whatever part of that total amount of memory that you want. I
    used that option to allow me to have more memory installed,
    but only let Win98 see 512MB of it.

    The second fix can set min and max for vcache. That
    fix is the one that people use, to try to pass the 512MB
    limit, and venture to use memory totals of from 512MB to 1GB.

    1) MaxPhysPage in System.ini, is like physically removing RAM
    from the system, without needing to touch the RAM. The value is
    coded in hexidecimal. This mod is suitable for dual boot systems,
    where the non-Win98 system can use more than 512MB, but you
    prevent Win98 from seeing more than the amount you specify.
    Memory pages are 4KB each, and the number on the
    line below is in hex. Thus 20000 hex is 131072 decimal, times
    4KB each, gives 512MB:

    [386Enh]
    MaxPhysPage=20000

    2) MaxFileCache (in the Vcache section of System.ini). This limits
    Vcache to the number of decimal KB specified. Vcache should not
    be larger than 512MB, so a value of 524288 is the maximum
    recommended. (See Q253912 in MS Knowledgebase.)

    [VCache]
    MaxFileCache=524288

    Note that, if you use MaxPhysPage and set it to 20000, you don't
    need to do the Vcache fix. If MaxPhysPage is set to between 20000
    and 40000, you need the Vcache fix. If MaxPhysPage is larger than
    40000, or MaxPhysPage is not used and greater than or equal to
    1GB of memory is present, you may have severe problems of one sort
    or another. On my system, severe problems set in at 768MB, but
    when I reported this, several other posters claimed to have no
    trouble with more than 768MB.

    (Some limits)
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=uILOzAjmDHA.1728%40TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl

    (More background)
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C599B01.B112D4AA%40uci.edu&rnum=9

    HTH,
    Paul
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Op Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:16:53 -0500 schreef Bill Anderson:

    > "Wim Zefat" <"wimz[nospam]"@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
    > news:n1kljim2b7hp$.id5r1t3dr4fk.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>
    >> If your P4C800 is like my P4P800, then there are two menu options/screens
    >> in the BIOS involved in setting the boot devices. One allows you to pick
    >> which devices you want to use in the boot sequence - but you can't set the
    >> order here. The second one allows you to set the order, but you can use
    >> only the devices selected in the other screen.
    >
    > I think I know what you mean. Is the other menu screen titled "Hard
    > Drives?" This one is strange. It lists all my hard drives (with the Maxtor
    > boot drive as #1) plus my SCSI flatbed scanner and my SCSI slide scanner.
    > At first it also listed my SCSI CD-ROM drive but not my SCSI CD-RW drive.
    > Aha! I said, and I moved the CDROM to the top of the hard drive list. Then
    > it appeared as one of the three boot devices I could choose, and I moved it
    > to the top of that list. Trouble is, the other two boot devices were the
    > floppy and the IDE DVD-RW. No hard drives to put on the list. I saved that
    > configuration and tried to boot with nothing in any removable media drive --
    > just boot from the hard drive -- and sure enough, since the Maxtor wasn't in
    > the list of three, the computer could find no hard drive and thus no
    > bootable media. Well, a computer that won't boot from its hard drive is no
    > good, so I went back to the bios and found the SCSI CDROM had disappeared as
    > an option and the menu of three was now showing a scanner as a boot device.
    > Argh. So I put things back the way they had been before.
    >
    > As I said, very strange. Also -- if you're talking about *another* menu
    > screen, not the "hard drives" screen, then please tell me more. I haven't
    > found another.
    >
    > By the way, I have flashed the bios to Rev. 1019, which is the latest
    > version on the Asus site.
    >
    > Bill Anderson
    >

    I just looked in the BIOS and noticed there are even more options then I
    remembered.. On my system (P4P800-E Deluxe) there are three options:
    Boot Device Priority - sets the boot sequence
    Hard Drives - lists both my hard drives and lets me select which one(s) to
    show under Boot Device Priority.
    CD-ROM Drives - lists my dvd-drive and my dvd-burner and lets me select
    which ones to show under Boot Device Priority.
    Normally, it shows the first hard drive under Hard Drives and the first
    cd-rom-drive under CD-ROM-drives, plus the floppy, under Boot Device
    Priority, but I can switch to any other device enabled in the other menu's
    by selecting one of the devices in the boot sequence and pressing Return.

    I don't have any SCSI-devices, so I can't say where these should show up.
    Beats me why it should show a SCSI-scanner as a boot-device though.

    Something else you might try is under Boot Settings Configuration. This
    lists the option 'Interrupt 19 capture', which is disabled on my system.
    According to the comments next to this, this is neeeded for add-on cards
    which have ROM-based setup-utilities. Most SCSI-cards show an option to
    start from SCSI if a bootable SCSI-device is found. (That's what the
    Adaptec-card in my precious computer used to do when I put a bootable cd in
    the SCSI cd-rom-drive. That option would show up after the BIOS finished
    booting.) Maybe you have to enable this option for the system to start the
    boot-rom on the scsi-card in order to get that option? (In which case,
    you'll probably also have to disable the full-screen logo at start-up, in
    order to see that option..).

    Wim
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Wim Zefat" <"wimz[nospam]"@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
    news:aipw6c0rtylq$.9226yi355zjb.dlg@40tude.net...

    >
    > I just looked in the BIOS and noticed there are even more options then I
    > remembered.. On my system (P4P800-E Deluxe) there are three options:
    > Boot Device Priority - sets the boot sequence

    I have this one. It shows three things only -- although I will SWEAR that
    it showed a fourth "disabled" option a day or two ago. Right now it shows
    my floppy, my IDE DVD-RW drive, and my Maxtor hard drive.

    > Hard Drives - lists both my hard drives and lets me select which one(s) to
    > show under Boot Device Priority.

    This one disappeared earlier today when I disconnected the SCSI controller,
    but now that I've reinstalled the SCSI controller with two SCSI CD-ROMS
    attached, the option has returned. But now it shows fewer devices than
    before. That's because I have only one hard drive connected now, and none
    of my SCSI scanners -- the only SCSI devices connected now are my two SCSI
    optical drives. And since I've also removed two of my three physical hard
    drives from the system, the "hard drives" option shows only two devices: my
    Maxtor hard drive and the first of my two Plextor SCSI CD-ROM drives.
    That's right -- it thinks my SCSI CD-ROM drive is a hard drive.

    If I designate my SCSI CD-ROM as Hard Drive #1, I get these three options in
    the boot devices menu: Floppy, IDE DVD-RW, and SCSI CD-ROM. That won't
    work. I need a hard drive in the list.

    I want the list of three to be Floppy, SCSI CD-ROM, and Maxtor HDD. HOW DO
    I DO THAT?!!! Argh.

    > CD-ROM Drives - lists my dvd-drive and my dvd-burner and lets me select
    > which ones to show under Boot Device Priority.

    I don't have this one. Wonder why? Maybe because I have only one IDE
    optical drive?

    > Normally, it shows the first hard drive under Hard Drives and the first
    > cd-rom-drive under CD-ROM-drives, plus the floppy, under Boot Device
    > Priority,

    That's exactly what I want to happen. Only I need the system to consider my
    SCSI CD-ROM as a CD-ROM, not a hard drive as it's doing now.

    but I can switch to any other device enabled in the other menu's
    > by selecting one of the devices in the boot sequence and pressing Return.

    I'll bet you have two or more IDE CD-ROMs and two or more physical hard
    drives and that's why BIOS is giving you both a Hard Drive and a CD-ROM
    menu. With only one IDE CD-ROM, I get no CD-ROM menu. I'll bet. Maybe.
    You think?

    >
    > I don't have any SCSI-devices, so I can't say where these should show up.
    > Beats me why it should show a SCSI-scanner as a boot-device though.

    Amen.

    >
    > Something else you might try is under Boot Settings Configuration. This
    > lists the option 'Interrupt 19 capture', which is disabled on my system.

    I took your advice and enabled it, and I really do believe this is why I now
    see the SCSI CD-ROM listed with my hard drive. I feel like I'm now
    tantalizingly close to the solution. When I boot with a bootable CD in the
    SCSI CD-ROM drive it actually looks like it's about to boot from the CD. It
    says "there is a bootable CD in your drive and it even tells me that it's
    remapping A: to something else but it flashes by very fast and I've never
    hit pause to really read it. Still, the bottom line is that it does NOT
    boot from the CD.

    > According to the comments next to this, this is neeeded for add-on cards
    > which have ROM-based setup-utilities. Most SCSI-cards show an option to
    > start from SCSI if a bootable SCSI-device is found. (That's what the
    > Adaptec-card in my precious computer used to do when I put a bootable cd
    > in
    > the SCSI cd-rom-drive. That option would show up after the BIOS finished
    > booting.)

    Yes, exactly. That's the way it worked with my P4T-E.

    Maybe you have to enable this option for the system to start the
    > boot-rom on the scsi-card in order to get that option? (In which case,
    > you'll probably also have to disable the full-screen logo at start-up, in
    > order to see that option..).
    >

    Well, I tried and it didn't work. But it did change things a bit, so I'm
    going to keep at it.

    Thanks very very much for the input. You have no idea how much I appreciate
    others helping me think this through.

    By the way, I'm typing this from WindowsXP Media Edition, which installed
    without a single hiccup once I'd removed the SCSI devices from the equation.

    Bill Anderson
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Op Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:50:12 -0500 schreef Bill Anderson:

    > I took your advice and enabled it, and I really do believe this is why I now
    > see the SCSI CD-ROM listed with my hard drive. I feel like I'm now
    > tantalizingly close to the solution. When I boot with a bootable CD in the
    > SCSI CD-ROM drive it actually looks like it's about to boot from the CD. It
    > says "there is a bootable CD in your drive and it even tells me that it's
    > remapping A: to something else but it flashes by very fast and I've never
    > hit pause to really read it. Still, the bottom line is that it does NOT
    > boot from the CD.

    That might point to a way around your problem. There are several ways to
    boot from a SCSI-device, depending on the computer's BIOS, the SCSI-card's
    BIOS and how these work together. Some of the better (and more expensive)
    cards offer a way to boot from a SCSI cd-rom, even if the computer's BIOS
    does *not* have any options for this. From your comments, this is what your
    system seems to be trying to do.

    Try setting the boot sequence to floppy, hard drive and IDE cd-rom, with
    the *floppy* as the first boot device. No need to have the SCSI cd-rom in
    there at all. Just put a bootable cd in the SCSI cd-rom and the system
    *should* boot from that anyway.

    This works like this: a bootable cd contains two separate data areas - the
    boot image and a separate area containing everything else. When the
    SCSI-card sees a bootable cd, it remaps floppy A to B (which you saw
    happen), then it creates a virtual 'floppy' A and remaps the contents of
    the bootable image from the cd to that. The system then thinks it's booting
    from floppy A, while it's really booting from the cd instead. (A: does not
    allow access to the entire cd though - just to the boot image. The rest of
    the cd, the second data area, shows up as usual, under the normal cd drive
    letter. The OS that boots from the cd (usually DOS) has to load it's own
    SCSI-driver (which has to be compatible with your SCSI-card) for that to
    work. Otherwise you get the silly situation that you can boot from cd, only
    to find that the system does not see the cd/drive you just booted from.)

    If this doesn't work the first time, try again and try pressing the space
    bar a couple of times while booting - you might have to press a key to tell
    the SCSI-card that you want to boot from the SCSI cd-rom. At least, on my
    old system it would say something like 'press a key to boot from cd'. On
    your new system, that option might be flying past so fast that you haven't
    got a chance to actually see it...

    > By the way, I'm typing this from WindowsXP Media Edition, which installed
    > without a single hiccup once I'd removed the SCSI devices from the equation.
    >
    > Bill Anderson

    Succes at last!

    Hope you solve your prolems.

    Wim
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Paul wrote:

    > You have 2x512MB of memory, and are booting Win98.
    >
    > In my experience, Win98 is only truly happy with 512MB of
    > memory. It is supposed to be usable with from 512MB to 1GB,
    > depending on how much address space you are burning up via
    > the video card and AGP slot (AGP aperture), but in some experiments
    > I did with one of my older systems, it only truly behaved
    > well at 512MB (zero anomalies, zero crashes, no funny slowdowns
    > or misbehavior).
    >
    > There are two fixes for the "out of memory" problem with Win98.
    > One fix is the equivalent of physically removing some of the
    > memory. That fix will allow you to leave 2x512MB in the machine,
    > but when Win98 is booted, the fix will cause the OS to ignore
    > whatever part of that total amount of memory that you want. I
    > used that option to allow me to have more memory installed,
    > but only let Win98 see 512MB of it.
    >
    > The second fix can set min and max for vcache. That
    > fix is the one that people use, to try to pass the 512MB
    > limit, and venture to use memory totals of from 512MB to 1GB.


    FWIW, here's the info posted in the win98.setup group some time ago by
    one of the Microsoft MVP's:

    "There is a specific problem that happens with Windows 95/98/Me when
    there is MORE than 512 mb of RAM installed and that is caused by an
    excessively large disk cache. There is a simple cure - just add the
    following line to the [vcache] section of c:\windows\system.ini:

    MaxFileCache=512000 "
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Wim Zefat wrote:

    >
    >>By the way, I'm typing this from WindowsXP Media Edition, which installed
    >>without a single hiccup once I'd removed the SCSI devices from the equation.
    >>
    >>Bill Anderson
    >
    >
    > Succes at last!
    >
    > Hope you solve your prolems.
    >
    > Wim

    Well, I have solved my problems, I suppose. I finally gave up on the
    two SCSI CD drives and ditched them. (Well, they're safely resting in a
    cabinet until I need them someday.) I went out to a local computer
    store and bought an IDE Plextor DVD-RW DVD+RW to go with my Pioneer
    DVD-RW. $129. And I bought an 80 Gbyte WD S-ATA HDD to replace my 40
    Gbyte Maxtor EIDE HDD. $79. So now I have an S-ATA drive from which to
    boot, two large WD HDDs on the primary IDE channel, and two DVD-RWs on
    the secondary IDE channel.

    But even that wasn't easy because the Asus bios insisted on regarding my
    SCSI flatbed scanner and my SCSI slide scanner as hard drives. And when
    I first plugged the S-ATA drive in, the ASUS bios did not see it at all,
    no matter how I fiddled with the bios. The only hard drives the BIOS
    would report were the two EIDE drives and the two SCSI scanners. (Ever
    tried to boot from a scanner?) It wasn't until I removed the two EIDE
    drives and the two SCSI scanners from the equation that the ASUS BIOS
    would see the S-ATA drive. It now saw my new drive and the two IDE
    optical drives, so I just installed WinXP with things set up like that.
    Then, when WinXP was running fine (it installed without a hitch), I
    plugged the two EIDE hard drives back into the primary IDE channel.
    When they showed up just fine in the BIOS (after a little reshuffling),
    I plugged the scanners back into the SCSI adapter, and now they're
    running fine.

    Very weird. But it's working like a charm now. Thanks to you and to
    Paul and to the others for your help. Now I know why I play with my
    computer as a hobby but I don't try to make a living at it.

    --
    Bill Anderson

    I am the Mighty Favog
Ask a new question

Read More

Asus Motherboards