P4C800E deluxe Intel Prescott ready?

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

Hi!

I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?

TIA,
Ulrich
--
Sorry: English isn't my native language.
So please don't feel confused by that
dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
24 answers Last reply
More about p4c800e deluxe intel prescott ready
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Ulrich F. Heidenreich" <use.reply-to@spamfence.net> ???
    news:co7315.3vvkdcl.1@ufh.invalid.de ???...
    Hi!

    I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
    is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
    I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?

    TIA,
    Ulrich

    ===

    Yes it does.
    http://www.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=P4C800-E%20Deluxe&langs=01
    -Socket 478 for Intel Pentium 4/ Celeron up to 3.2 GHz+
    -Intel Hyper-Threading Technology ready
    -New power design supports Intel next generation Prescott CPU

    Make sure you flash it to the latest bios.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Bronney Hui in <news:co70f8$nf62@imsp212.netvigator.com>:

    >Yes it does.

    Thanks a lot.

    >http://www.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=P4C800-E%20Deluxe&langs=01
    >-New power design supports Intel next generation Prescott CPU

    This sentence is missing on ASUS' german site.

    >Make sure you flash it to the latest bios.

    I've not bought it yet. I think, it will come with the latest one.

    May I ask (you) too, if there are possible known problems, by putting a
    Sapphire Radeon 8900 pro and two Kingston KVR400X64C3A/512 onto that
    board? This memory is both mentioned within ASUS so called QVL at
    http://www.asuscom.de/products/mb/socket478/P4C800_DDR400_QVL.pdf and
    certified by Kingston to work on this board. I think, it will be the
    right choice. Any hints regarding the vga card?

    TIA,
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Ulrich F. Heidenreich" <use.reply-to@spamfence.net> ???
    news:co76bg.3vvkdcl.1@ufh.invalid.de ???...
    May I ask (you) too, if there are possible known problems, by putting a
    Sapphire Radeon 8900 pro and two Kingston KVR400X64C3A/512 onto that
    board? This memory is both mentioned within ASUS so called QVL at
    http://www.asuscom.de/products/mb/socket478/P4C800_DDR400_QVL.pdf and
    certified by Kingston to work on this board. I think, it will be the
    right choice. Any hints regarding the vga card?

    TIA,
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
    ===

    Sorry I have no experience with ATi cards. I am running a Leadtek 6800GT
    and 2x corsair value select 512MB DDR400 off a ASUS P4P800SE and see no
    problem. The only problem is that I need a more powerful PSU to run the
    card. Please use something over 400W for your setup as that's what most
    poeple recommends. Thanks.

    I believe the prescott draw something like 100W off the PSU already and the
    9800 would be another 100W.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Ulrich F. Heidenreich" <use.reply-to@spamfence.net> wrote in message
    news:co7315.3vvkdcl.1@ufh.invalid.de...
    Hi!

    I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
    is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
    I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?

    TIA,
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)


    I just got that board like 2 weeks ago with a 3.2E prescott. flashing the
    bios was not necessary, it worked flawlessly out of the box. I don't
    recomment the intel HS/fan though. The prescott runs a bit hot, but after a
    cooling upgrade the temps came down to a comfortable level.

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

    MoFoYa wrote:

    > "Ulrich F. Heidenreich" <use.reply-to@spamfence.net> wrote in message
    > news:co7315.3vvkdcl.1@ufh.invalid.de...
    > Hi!
    >
    > I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
    > is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
    > I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?
    >
    > TIA,
    > Ulrich

    It is.
    --
    Cheers, Bob
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Ulrich F. Heidenreich wrote:

    > Hi!
    >
    > I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
    > is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
    > I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?
    >
    > TIA,
    > Ulrich

    Hello,

    I use a P4 3.2GHz Prescott on the P4C800E-Deluxe with BIOS version 1019 -
    no problems (OS Linux & Windows).

    Ralph

    ============================================================
     Ralph Stens
     email : ralph.stens@r-stens.de
    ============================================================
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    >May I ask (you) too, if there are possible known problems, by putting a
    >Sapphire Radeon 8900 pro and two Kingston KVR400X64C3A/512 onto that
    >board? This memory is both mentioned within ASUS so called QVL at
    >http://www.asuscom.de/products/mb/socket478/P4C800_DDR400_QVL.pdf and
    >certified by Kingston to work on this board. I think, it will be the
    >right choice. Any hints regarding the vga card?
    >
    >TIA,
    >Ulrich

    Hello Ulrich,

    If the Radeon you are asking about is actually a 9800 Pro (transposed
    8 with 9?) there are no issues with this board and that video chipset.
    The 9800 Pro runs beautifully on the P4C800E Deluxe.

    Regards,

    Ender.
    ____
    [____]
    (OIIIIIIO)
    [] []
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Bob Willard" <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:X9Tpd.92368$V41.4996@attbi_s52...
    > MoFoYa wrote:
    >
    > > "Ulrich F. Heidenreich" <use.reply-to@spamfence.net> wrote in message
    > > news:co7315.3vvkdcl.1@ufh.invalid.de...
    > > Hi!
    > >
    > > I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
    > > is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
    > > I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?
    > >
    > > TIA,
    > > Ulrich
    >
    > It is.

    Just be sure to flash the latest BIOS... Not sure if/when the Prescott
    support was added for WinXP SP2
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Ender in <news:59ehq0l0re6kkecb8eqlpgiq478oiqb8mq@4ax.com>:

    >If the Radeon you are asking about is actually a 9800 Pro

    Sure it is.

    >(transposed 8 with 9?)

    It looks like. Please ask my keyborad. It recently has a tendency to
    turn letters round ...

    >there are no issues with this board and that video chipset.
    >The 9800 Pro runs beautifully on the P4C800E Deluxe.

    Fine. Thanks.

    CU!
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Noozer wrote:
    > "Bob Willard" <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:X9Tpd.92368$V41.4996@attbi_s52...
    >
    >>MoFoYa wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Ulrich F. Heidenreich" <use.reply-to@spamfence.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:co7315.3vvkdcl.1@ufh.invalid.de...
    >>>Hi!
    >>>
    >>>I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
    >>>is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
    >>>I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?
    >>>
    >>>TIA,
    >>>Ulrich
    >>
    >>It is.
    >
    >
    > Just be sure to flash the latest BIOS... Not sure if/when the Prescott
    > support was added for WinXP SP2
    >
    >

    The Asus site says BIOS 1017 is needed for the 3.0 GHz Prescott CPU. But
    I have no problems with a 3.0 GHz Prescott on my P4C800ED, using XP PRO SP2,
    running the as-shipped 1012 BIOS; I don't use all of the MB's capabilities
    (e.g., RAID), which may be why I'm getting by with an old BIOS.

    The Asus site is not very detailed about what bugs were fixed in what BIOS
    release. ISTR more detailed info about BIOS releases for my T2P4.
    --
    Cheers, Bob
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Ender in <news:59ehq0l0re6kkecb8eqlpgiq478oiqb8mq@4ax.com>:

    Sorry, me again ...

    >If the Radeon you are asking about is actually a 9800 Pro

    Yes.

    >there are no issues with this board and that video chipset.
    >The 9800 Pro runs beautifully on the P4C800E Deluxe.

    Except here :-(

    Yesterday I at least got the entire stuff; here in Germany things were
    sold out due to Christams: The board, two 512 MByte Kingston memory
    sticks, an Aopen big tower H700A (btw a very good case, imho) and that
    Sapphire Radeon 9800 Atlantis pro.

    Win 98 SE installation seems to run fine. At least up to the point, when
    I tried to install the graphic card drivers: As usual the systems wanted
    to be rebooted after installing the drivers, it reboots properly, it
    shows the network login dialog asking me for user and password and then
    ... a pretty empty desktop, cursor sticking to its hourglass, still
    movable, but no desktop icons at all to click on. Boring, isn't it?

    What may I have done wrong?

    CU!
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    >What may I have done wrong?

    You tried installing a 7+ year old OS on a new MB. Grab a copy of XP Pro
    and life will be much better for you and that system.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    DanO in <news:ydHFd.17974$fE4.2881188@twister.southeast.rr.com>:

    >>What may I have done wrong?
    >
    >You tried installing a 7+ year old OS on a new MB. Grab a copy of XP Pro
    >and life will be much better for you and that system.

    Does that mean, it won't work at all, trying to install a win98 graphic
    card's driver on a mainboard younger than 7 years? If that's true, I'm
    *indeed* wasting time. Or are you just joking?

    As I'm not really sure, if it is a hardware issue due to the board or
    the graphic card or whatsoever, or just a software incompatibility, I
    will be very pleased to get an honest answer: Does that catalyst driver
    really won't work under win98SE?

    Or do you just not recommend it, using an OS out of the museum :-)

    TIA,
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Ulrich F. Heidenreich wrote:
    > DanO in <news:ydHFd.17974$fE4.2881188@twister.southeast.rr.com>:
    >>You tried installing a 7+ year old OS on a new MB. Grab a copy of XP Pro
    >>and life will be much better for you and that system.

    > Does that mean, it won't work at all, trying to install a win98 graphic
    > card's driver on a mainboard younger than 7 years? If that's true, I'm
    > *indeed* wasting time. Or are you just joking?

    Win98SE can only handle 512 MB RAM maximum.

    That is why your computer is not working...it has little to do with your
    graphics card (at least I would be surprised if it mattered).

    Just check by taking a stick of RAM out.


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

    In article <cs8ag5.3vvgsn1.1@ufh.invalid.de>, eispampelmuse@arcor.de wrote:

    > DanO in <news:ydHFd.17974$fE4.2881188@twister.southeast.rr.com>:
    >
    > >>What may I have done wrong?
    > >
    > >You tried installing a 7+ year old OS on a new MB. Grab a copy of
    > >XPPro and life will be much better for you and that system.
    >
    > Does that mean, it won't work at all, trying to install a win98 graphic
    > card's driver on a mainboard younger than 7 years? If that's true, I'm
    > *indeed* wasting time. Or are you just joking?
    >
    > As I'm not really sure, if it is a hardware issue due to the board or
    > the graphic card or whatsoever, or just a software incompatibility, I
    > will be very pleased to get an honest answer: Does that catalyst driver
    > really won't work under win98SE?
    >
    > Or do you just not recommend it, using an OS out of the museum :-)
    >
    > TIA,
    > Ulrich
    >
    > Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    > So please don't feel confused by that
    > dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)

    In your hardware config in the original post, you mention 1GB of
    RAM. There are issues with Win98SE and more than 512MB of RAM.

    A quick test for you, is remove one stick of RAM, and continue
    your installation efforts. If the stuff installs properly, then
    do a search in Google, for the two .ini fixes that allow
    operation with more RAM.

    Looking at an Asus web page for their 9800pro video card, it
    seems the drivers are for Win2K/WinXP. So it is possible that
    DanO is right.

    http://www.asus.com.tw/support/download/item.aspx?ModelName=A9800%20SERIES

    If you go to the ATI driver download page and select Win98:

    http://mirror.ati.com/support/driver.html

    you will end up here:

    http://mirror.ati.com/support/drivers/winme/radeonwdm-me.html?type=98&prodType=graphic&prod=productsME98driver&submit.x=13&submit.y=7

    and they offer the Catalyst 4.10 driver. 19.4MB. Posted 10/28/04
    Give this a try.

    http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wme-8-03-98-2-041020a-018705e.exe

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

    Austin P. So (Hae Jin) in <news:cs94gc$dlb$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>:

    >Win98SE can only handle 512 MB RAM maximum.

    That's not basically true. I've another machine - ASUS CUV4XD - running
    fine with 1 GByte of RAM under Win98 SE. I even run 768 MByte on an ASUS
    P2B-LS using Win 95.

    The ini patches, Paul mentioned in
    <news:nospam-1401051428060001@192.168.1.177> are installed only due to
    other reasons. No Problems without them with the graphic card drivers at
    all: On the P2B-LS a really ancient GForce 256; in the CUV4XD a Matrox
    G550. But maybe ATI cards and their catalyst drivers are more sensitive
    .... :-(

    >Just check by taking a stick of RAM out.

    Thanks a lot Austin and of course Paul: That's exactly what I'll check
    out tomorrow.

    CU!
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Austin P. So (Hae Jin) in <news:cs94gc$dlb$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>:

    >Win98SE can only handle 512 MB RAM maximum.

    That's not basically true. I've another machine - ASUS CUV4XD - running
    fine with 1 GByte of RAM under Win98 SE. I even run 768 MByte on an ASUS
    P2B-LS using Win 95.

    The ini patches, Paul mentioned in
    <news:nospam-1401051428060001@192.168.1.177> are installed only due to
    other reasons. No Problems without them with the graphic card drivers at
    all: On the P2B-LS a really ancient GForce 256; in the CUV4XD a Matrox
    G550. But maybe ATI cards and their catalyst drivers are more sensitive
    ... :-(

    >Just check by taking a stick of RAM out.

    Thanks a lot Austin and of course Paul: That's exactly what I'll check
    out tomorrow.

    CU!
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Paul in <news:nospam-1401051428060001@192.168.1.177>:

    >In your hardware config in the original post, you mention 1GB of
    >RAM. There are issues with Win98SE and more than 512MB of RAM.

    I remember.

    >A quick test for you, is remove one stick of RAM, and continue
    >your installation efforts. If the stuff installs properly, then
    >do a search in Google, for the two .ini fixes that allow
    >operation with more RAM.

    Meanwhile I've tried it the other way round: First made the patches,
    which worked fine under Win95 on a P2B-LS and Win98SE on an CUV4XD. But
    that was without success. Then I removed one of the sticks, and at last
    I can install the drivers. But not completely: The "ATI Control Panel"
    failed to start, claiming that there were no ATI video drivers
    installed.

    Remembering, that some posts here said, that board and card will be a
    very fine couple, a very frustrating result ...

    >Looking at an Asus web page for their 9800pro video card, it
    >seems the drivers are for Win2K/WinXP.

    The ATI Setup explizitely titled itself as "Windows 98 Driver install".
    That will be not the issue. I rather guess, the drivers are just poorly
    designed. More then 512 MByte RAM without (sic!) any patches crashes
    neither my GeForce 256 nor the Matrox G550 drivers on the above
    mentioned systems.

    >http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wme-8-03-98-2-041020a-018705e.exe

    BTDT. No succes with 1 GByte of RAM.

    >Good luck,

    Thanks. I guess, I'll need it somehow ... :-\

    CU!
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <csdhue.3vvkjlh.1@ufh.invalid.de>, eispampelmuse@arcor.de wrote:

    > Paul in <news:nospam-1401051428060001@192.168.1.177>:
    >
    > >In your hardware config in the original post, you mention 1GB of
    > >RAM. There are issues with Win98SE and more than 512MB of RAM.
    >
    > I remember.
    >
    > >A quick test for you, is remove one stick of RAM, and continue=20
    > >your installation efforts. If the stuff installs properly, then
    > >do a search in Google, for the two .ini fixes that allow
    > >operation with more RAM.
    >
    > Meanwhile I've tried it the other way round: First made the patches,
    > which worked fine under Win95 on a P2B-LS and Win98SE on an CUV4XD. But
    > that was without success. Then I removed one of the sticks, and at last
    > I can install the drivers. But not completely: The "ATI Control Panel"
    > failed to start, claiming that there were no ATI video drivers
    > installed.=20
    >
    > Remembering, that some posts here said, that board and card will be a
    > very fine couple, a very frustrating result ...=20
    >
    > >Looking at an Asus web page for their 9800pro video card, it
    > >seems the drivers are for Win2K/WinXP.=20
    >
    > The ATI Setup explizitely titled itself as "Windows 98 Driver install".
    > That will be not the issue. I rather guess, the drivers are just poorly
    > designed. More then 512 MByte RAM without (sic!) any patches crashes
    > neither my GeForce 256 nor the Matrox G550 drivers on the above
    > mentioned systems. =20
    >
    > >http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wme-8-03-98-2-041020a-018705e.exe
    >
    > BTDT. No succes with 1 GByte of RAM.
    >
    > >Good luck,
    >
    > Thanks. I guess, I'll need it somehow ... :-\=20
    >
    > CU!
    > Ulrich
    > --=20
    > Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    > So please don't feel confused by that
    > dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)

    I trust you have installed the Intel chipset drivers. They are
    referred to sometimes as INFINST.exe . Check your motherboard
    CD for a copy, or visit downloadfinder.intel.com and try and
    find the relevant version there.

    The ATI installation software may also get picky about the
    version of DirectX you are using. You could try a DirectX
    upgrade in that case.

    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.aspx?displaylang=en&categoryid=2

    But right now, I would search for a chipset INFINST driver
    set to install.

    Video card software only really installs in one order -
    chipset_drivers, ATI_video_card_driver, ATI_control_panel

    and the installer will complain at some point, about DirectX,
    but I don't remember exactly which step that would be.
    In any case, the computer will request enough reboots, to
    enforce that installation order. Since you can install the
    same version of DirectX over and over again, without harm,
    you could start the install process with the DirectX upgrade
    if you want.

    I still think there is hope. Think positive thoughts :-)

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

    Paul in <news:nospam-1701050052280001@192.168.1.177>:

    >In article <csdhue.3vvkjlh.1@ufh.invalid.de>, eispampelmuse@arcor.de wrote:
    >
    >> Meanwhile I've tried it the other way round: First made the patches,
    >> which worked fine under Win95 on a P2B-LS and Win98SE on an CUV4XD. But
    >> that was without success. Then I removed one of the sticks, and at last
    >> I can install the drivers. But not completely: The "ATI Control Panel"
    >> failed to start, claiming that there were no ATI video drivers
    >> installed.

    And now the, somehow surprising, solution:

    I removed the ATI drivers once more and did a new installation again.
    Voilà: Drivers *and* control panel were working fine. Then I replaced
    the removed 512 MByte stick just for fun, expecting to see a crash
    again. As we say in German: "Denkste!" (Sorry: I don't know the english
    phrase). The driver keeps working fine even with 1 GByte of memory.

    Obviously only the driver _installation_ routine had problems with that
    large amount of memory and messed it up.

    >I trust you have installed the Intel chipset drivers.

    Sure. Without them you won't get rid of numerous yellow question marks
    in the device manager. They are installed, of course.

    >The ATI installation software may also get picky about the
    >version of DirectX you are using. You could try a DirectX
    >upgrade in that case.

    The DirectX ist 9.0 and has been installed by the ATI Driver setup prior
    to installing the driver itself.

    >I still think there is hope. Think positive thoughts :-)

    Thanks a lot. At last it helped. :-)

    CU!
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Austin, Ulrich, Dan, Paul et al:
    Greetings and hallucinations from just north of Fantasy Land (Washington,
    DC)!
    If you have more than 512 MB of RAM on a Windows 98SE or (shudder) ME
    system, there is a work around. What is going on is that the CPUs can only
    map 4 GB of memory addresses. Add more than 512 MB of RAM and you wind up
    trying to do just that. The system maps addresses for virtual RAM which is
    about 3X your actual RAM. You will need to edit your system registry's
    [VCache] to limit the MaxFileCache to under 524288 (KB). It should look like
    this:
    [VCache]
    MaxFileCache=524288

    Sometimes a large memory count on a video card can play havoc with this,
    too. I guess that it depends on how the video card uses the memory. In that
    case, subtract the amount of RAM on the card from MaxFileCache.
    If you want to see if this works, try going to a DOS window. If you have it
    set too high, opening the window will tell you that you are out of memory.

    Ulrich,
    Please note the following URL. I suspect that you would understand this
    link. :-D Tschuß
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb%3Bde%3BD43699
    Peace,
    Paul
    "Austin P. So (Hae Jin)" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:cs94gc$dlb$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
    > Ulrich F. Heidenreich wrote:
    >> DanO in <news:ydHFd.17974$fE4.2881188@twister.southeast.rr.com>:
    >>>You tried installing a 7+ year old OS on a new MB. Grab a copy of XP Pro
    >>>and life will be much better for you and that system.
    >
    >> Does that mean, it won't work at all, trying to install a win98 graphic
    >> card's driver on a mainboard younger than 7 years? If that's true, I'm
    >> *indeed* wasting time. Or are you just joking?
    >
    > Win98SE can only handle 512 MB RAM maximum.
    >
    > That is why your computer is not working...it has little to do with your
    > graphics card (at least I would be surprised if it mattered).
    >
    > Just check by taking a stick of RAM out.
    >
    >
    >
    > Austin
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Paul D. Motzenbecker, Jr. in <news:2r1Hd.75$cn5.18900@news.uswest.net>:

    >If you have more than 512 MB of RAM on a Windows 98SE or (shudder) ME
    >system, there is a work around
    [..]
    >You will need to edit your system registry's
    >[VCache] to limit the MaxFileCache to under 524288

    Exactly that patch didn't help. Try to read first (e.g.
    <csdhue.3vvkjlh.1@ufh.invalid.de>) and then to answer.

    No offence,
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    bmcky in <news:n5fpu0dvcd7skbvs20m6kpv8j7lf947a4r@4ax.com>:

    >I thought a big reason for using that board was the ability to use full
    >raid

    I'm sorry: No.
    I just wanted a worthy (and stable) successor for my good old P2B-LS.

    CU!
    Ulrich
    --
    Sorry: English isn't my native language.
    So please don't feel confused by that
    dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:56:41 +0100, "Ulrich F. Heidenreich"
    <use.reply-to@spamfence.net> wrote:

    >bmcky in <news:n5fpu0dvcd7skbvs20m6kpv8j7lf947a4r@4ax.com>:
    >
    >>I thought a big reason for using that board was the ability to use full
    >>raid
    >
    >I'm sorry: No.
    >I just wanted a worthy (and stable) successor for my good old P2B-LS.
    >
    >CU!
    >Ulrich

    Ok then, think of it this way:

    You're worthy, stable, good old P2B-LS has been hurt in an attack by
    unscroupulous AMD terrorist-engineers. They didn't mean to do it, it
    was collateral damage. You could retire the loyal, stabile, P2B-LS
    and use it perhaps as a print server. OR:

    You could rebuild the P2B-LS with the latest circuitry, operating
    systems & electronics engineering; you could make it stronger, faster,
    more intelligent and able to do things it had never been able to
    imagine before, with a state-of-the art operating system. If you did
    all that, you'd have this ASUS board. Now go and install XP Pro and
    have some fun.

    ATI has an updated driver set for all their Radeon boards, so you
    might check them later on, but I'd bet that system is going to run
    like a raped ape once its configured with an appropriate O/S.

    Good luck,

    bmcky

    Boston, MA
Ask a new question

Read More

Asus Intel Motherboards