nforce chipset / typical memory usage ?

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:36:32 +1300, "~misfit~"
wrote:

Darthy wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:44:08 -0000, Colin Wilson
wrote:

98 does cache agressively so basically it will try and use what's
not being used for applications for the file cache so it will
appear to use more memory up from the start.

Thanks for the reply... I thought using cacheman would have eased the
usage a little...

I find cache utilities for Win98 to be so-so... usually destablizing
the system.

As much as I don't agree with WindowsXP and M$ anti-rights policies...
newer hardware doesn't work very well with Windows98.

If you bought a NEW Nforce2 board, you really will have problems using
Win98 on it... Same thing with VIA chipsets, their latest drivers are
**** for Windows98... and you can't use the OLD drivers on NEWER
boards.

I'm talking UN-USABLE systems! Completely unstable with just Win98
and the driver set (which YOU need). A few years ago, Win98 on a
clean install was quick and responsive... not anymore.

I did a 98SE install on a Soltek nForce2 Ultra 400 board a month ago and
it's running peachy.

That doesn't sound good.

Sorry, but I'm finding that doing clean installs with latest driver =
problems.

KT600 or Nforce2. (1 - install Win98se 2- install Mobo drivers 3-
start installing other drivers (video) and apps..

Sometimes I notice problems right after the drivers, or soon after.

On same hardware, stick on WinXP... no problems.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:36:32 +1300, "~misfit~"
wrote:
I did a 98SE install on a Soltek nForce2 Ultra 400 board a month ago
and it's running peachy.

That doesn't sound good.

Sorry, but I'm finding that doing clean installs with latest driver =
problems.

KT600 or Nforce2. (1 - install Win98se 2- install Mobo drivers 3-
start installing other drivers (video) and apps..

Sometimes I notice problems right after the drivers, or soon after.

On same hardware, stick on WinXP... no problems.

I assure you it's running fine. All drivers and apps installed, even the
drivers for the integrated GeForce 4 MX video.

I didn't build it for myself, it's for a guy (father-in-law) who is using it
as a business PC and all his (expensive) specialised software won't run on
XP without him buying all new versions, something he isn't prepared to do at
this stage as it would cost 10X the price of a new computer. His Celly 500
was just too slow though and he needed more power.
--
~misfit~

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:31:16 +1300, "~misfit~"
wrote:

On same hardware, stick on WinXP... no problems.

I assure you it's running fine. All drivers and apps installed, even the
drivers for the integrated GeForce 4 MX video.

Thats good...

I didn't build it for myself, it's for a guy (father-in-law) who is using it
as a business PC and all his (expensive) specialised software won't run on
XP without him buying all new versions, something he isn't prepared to do at
this stage as it would cost 10X the price of a new computer. His Celly 500
was just too slow though and he needed more power.

hehe... as long as it works..


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!