(Semi-OT) Registered ECC RAM (and Windows 98)

[Guest rpgs rock dvds]

Having re-read the Supermicro P6SBA (I have revision 2.0) mobo manual

(unfortunately only the manual for revision 4.0 exists online) what

must be about a dozen times now, the penny has *finally* dropped and I

now understand exactly type of RAM it supports.

 

I'd quite like 512mb of memory for my Win98 boxes. It would be nice

to dual-boot them with XP, and so this amount of RAM would be a good

idea I think.

 

However, in order to get this much RAM onboard, the RAM sticks must be

registered. I've found some registered sticks online (which are also

ECC.) The mobo manual says it supports both registered and ECC RAM,

so that's OK I think.

 

I guess my principal query is simply - will registered ECC RAM get

along fine with Windows 98 (and XP) ? I've heard this type of memory

slows things down a little bit, but would this decent amount of memory

more than make up for any "slowdowns" that this special type of memory

has on a mobo?

 

Alternatively, I could go for unregistered (non-ECC) SDRAM, but I'm

limited to a max of 384mb for this type of RAM.

 

I'm tempted to go for the registered ECC stuff...

 

Any thoughts please - thanks very much.

 

Best regards, Robert.

[Guest Gary S. Terhune]

Re: (Semi-OT) Registered ECC RAM (and Windows 98)

 

What I think is that you didn't get a board that is good enough for Windows

XP. That RAM is EXPENSIVE!!! And yes, it's runs slow, about half as fast as

you could run if the RAM were unbuffered. 66 vs 100 MHz. And no, more RAM

doesn't make up for that unless the system were in need of more RAM in the

first place. What do you run in the way of RAM intensive applications? I

occasionally do run XP on only 384 MB of RAM, but it's also only a ~350MHz

CPU. Yup, it's slow, and I don't run any RAM intensive apps on it, but it's

reasonably useful.

 

I didn't really follow your earlier thread closely, but you'd have done

better to spend more money on a newer mobo, one that can handle easily

handle 500MB or even 1GB or 2GB unbuffered RAM. RAM for newer machines is

LOTS cheaper than for older systems. You'd also be running faster than

66/100.

 

How fast is the CPU in that thing?

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

 

"rpgs rock dvds" <rpgsrockdvds@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:85284630-949d-4325-a80b-10563eff7624@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> Having re-read the Supermicro P6SBA (I have revision 2.0) mobo manual

> (unfortunately only the manual for revision 4.0 exists online) what

> must be about a dozen times now, the penny has *finally* dropped and I

> now understand exactly type of RAM it supports.

>

> I'd quite like 512mb of memory for my Win98 boxes. It would be nice

> to dual-boot them with XP, and so this amount of RAM would be a good

> idea I think.

>

> However, in order to get this much RAM onboard, the RAM sticks must be

> registered. I've found some registered sticks online (which are also

> ECC.) The mobo manual says it supports both registered and ECC RAM,

> so that's OK I think.

>

> I guess my principal query is simply - will registered ECC RAM get

> along fine with Windows 98 (and XP) ? I've heard this type of memory

> slows things down a little bit, but would this decent amount of memory

> more than make up for any "slowdowns" that this special type of memory

> has on a mobo?

>

> Alternatively, I could go for unregistered (non-ECC) SDRAM, but I'm

> limited to a max of 384mb for this type of RAM.

>

> I'm tempted to go for the registered ECC stuff...

>

> Any thoughts please - thanks very much.

>

> Best regards, Robert.

[Guest rpgs rock dvds]

Re: (Semi-OT) Registered ECC RAM (and Windows 98)

 

On 29 May, 20:10, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>> What I think is that you didn't get a board that is good enough for Windows XP.

 

Not true. If it was, I'd simply say so right now. I'd say "I'm

building an XP machine (and I'd be posting at the XP forum.)

>> That RAM is EXPENSIVE!!!

 

On ebay, I've seen it cheaper than unbuffered non-ECC SDRAM.

>> And yes, it's runs slow, about half as fast as you could run if the RAM were unbuffered. 66 vs 100 MHz.

 

Half as slow? Are you absolutely sure about that?

>> I didn't really follow your earlier thread closely, but you'd have done better to spend more money on a newer mobo...

 

But I'm trying to build three Win98 PCs. (Dual-booting with XP was

going to be put on one of them, just to safely connect to the web and

check email and do a bit of browsing.)

>> ...one that can handle easily handle 500MB or even 1GB or 2GB unbuffered RAM.

 

Why do I need that much RAM for Windows 98?

>> You'd also be running faster than 66/100.

 

But 100 speed is perfect for Win98.

>> How fast is the CPU in that thing?

 

The three legacy Win98 machines I'm building will probably be 500, 600

and 800mhz.

[Guest Gary S. Terhune]

Re: (Semi-OT) Registered ECC RAM (and Windows 98)

 

"rpgs rock dvds" <rpgsrockdvds@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:5a0607fc-23e8-4452-9ea6-577ca33597ab@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> On 29 May, 20:10, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>

>>> What I think is that you didn't get a board that is good enough for

>>> Windows XP.

>

> Not true. If it was, I'd simply say so right now. I'd say "I'm

> building an XP machine (and I'd be posting at the XP forum.)

 

That response makes no sense. All I said is that if your intent was to

dual-boot XP on that board, you didn't get a good enough one.

>>> That RAM is EXPENSIVE!!!

>

> On ebay, I've seen it cheaper than unbuffered non-ECC SDRAM.

 

There's lots of different RAMs out there, and supply & demand govern

pricing. For instance, Crucial.com doesn't even offer the ECC version for

that board. So tell me, how expensive is the ECC compared to the

non-buffered? Are you certain that the ECC-Registered RAM you found is right

for your system. A perfect match, not just some generic approximation?

 

Anyway, FWIW, the general rule is that the older the board, the more

expensive the RAM (excluding very new types on verynew boards.)

>>> And yes, it's runs slow, about half as fast as you could run if the RAM

>>> were unbuffered. 66 vs 100 MHz.

>

> Half as slow? Are you absolutely sure about that?

 

I was being approximate. No, what it will run is 2/3 as fast.

>>> I didn't really follow your earlier thread closely, but you'd have done

>>> better to spend more money on a newer mobo...

>

> But I'm trying to build three Win98 PCs. (Dual-booting with XP was

> going to be put on one of them, just to safely connect to the web and

> check email and do a bit of browsing.)

 

Again, if you're going to dual-boot XP, you should purchase hardware that

will do a decent job of it. Your whole goal, as I understand it, is to make

this board the sometime-XP machine. If that was your plan, IMO you got one

that is too old.

>>> ...one that can handle easily handle 500MB or even 1GB or 2GB unbuffered

>>> RAM.

>

> Why do I need that much RAM for Windows 98?

 

You don't. You need it for XP.

>>> You'd also be running faster than 66/100.

>

> But 100 speed is perfect for Win98.

 

But it CAN run lots faster and do so just fine. And you WILL notice the

difference.

>>> How fast is the CPU in that thing?

>

> The three legacy Win98 machines I'm building will probably be 500, 600

> and 800mhz.

 

I'm talking about the mobo that is the topic of this thread, or are you

building three the same?

 

Look, your whole spiel in the first post is that you'd *like* to dual-boot

XP, thus you'd *like* at least 500MB RAM (I concur). All I'm saying is that

if that was your plan, you should have purchased a board more suited to XP,

and that one you have isn't suited to XP. Period.

 

Max out the RAM however you can, run at 66MHz (ridiculously slow for XP,

even with a 800MHz CPU.) You'd have probably SAVED money by going for a

newer board that can run XP wonderfully, and also Win98. There are LOTS of

them out there. The right one for you would be fairly old by my standards,

but the RAM for those boards is cheap compared to the generation of boards

yours belongs to. At least, that's the way it was when I shopped a couple of

years ago.

 

But I'm blind, here. I have no idea what you paid for the mobo(s), what the

RAM is listed for, etc. So I can't exactly make any detailed comparison. All

I know is that the board you describe, especially with the RAM configuration

you propose, won't run XP worth a darn. Yes, it will run, but you won't want

to do much more than email and plain-text internet sites. For sure no

RAM-intensive stuff. I just figure that if you want to run XP at all, you'd

want to have it be able to do more than that.

 

And it's helpful if you include the previous content in your posts. I had to

keep skipping back to your first post to find important info.

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

[Guest Haggis]

Re: (Semi-OT) Registered ECC RAM (and Windows 98)

 

 

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:OYiGkzcwIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> "rpgs rock dvds" <rpgsrockdvds@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

> news:5a0607fc-23e8-4452-9ea6-577ca33597ab@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>> On 29 May, 20:10, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>>

>>>> What I think is that you didn't get a board that is good enough for

>>>> Windows XP.

>>

>> Not true. If it was, I'd simply say so right now. I'd say "I'm

>> building an XP machine (and I'd be posting at the XP forum.)

>

> That response makes no sense. All I said is that if your intent was to

> dual-boot XP on that board, you didn't get a good enough one.

>

>>>> That RAM is EXPENSIVE!!!

>>

>> On ebay, I've seen it cheaper than unbuffered non-ECC SDRAM.

>

> There's lots of different RAMs out there, and supply & demand govern

> pricing. For instance, Crucial.com doesn't even offer the ECC version for

> that board. So tell me, how expensive is the ECC compared to the

> non-buffered? Are you certain that the ECC-Registered RAM you found is

> right for your system. A perfect match, not just some generic

> approximation?

>

> Anyway, FWIW, the general rule is that the older the board, the more

> expensive the RAM (excluding very new types on verynew boards.)

>

>>>> And yes, it's runs slow, about half as fast as you could run if the

>>>> RAM were unbuffered. 66 vs 100 MHz.

>>

>> Half as slow? Are you absolutely sure about that?

>

> I was being approximate. No, what it will run is 2/3 as fast.

>

>>>> I didn't really follow your earlier thread closely, but you'd have done

>>>> better to spend more money on a newer mobo...

>>

>> But I'm trying to build three Win98 PCs. (Dual-booting with XP was

>> going to be put on one of them, just to safely connect to the web and

>> check email and do a bit of browsing.)

>

> Again, if you're going to dual-boot XP, you should purchase hardware that

> will do a decent job of it. Your whole goal, as I understand it, is to

> make this board the sometime-XP machine. If that was your plan, IMO you

> got one that is too old.

>

>>>> ...one that can handle easily handle 500MB or even 1GB or 2GB

>>>> unbuffered RAM.

>>

>> Why do I need that much RAM for Windows 98?

>

> You don't. You need it for XP.

>

>>>> You'd also be running faster than 66/100.

>>

>> But 100 speed is perfect for Win98.

>

> But it CAN run lots faster and do so just fine. And you WILL notice the

> difference.

>

>>>> How fast is the CPU in that thing?

>>

>> The three legacy Win98 machines I'm building will probably be 500, 600

>> and 800mhz.

>

> I'm talking about the mobo that is the topic of this thread, or are you

> building three the same?

>

> Look, your whole spiel in the first post is that you'd *like* to dual-boot

> XP, thus you'd *like* at least 500MB RAM (I concur). All I'm saying is

> that if that was your plan, you should have purchased a board more suited

> to XP, and that one you have isn't suited to XP. Period.

>

> Max out the RAM however you can, run at 66MHz (ridiculously slow for XP,

> even with a 800MHz CPU.) You'd have probably SAVED money by going for a

> newer board that can run XP wonderfully, and also Win98. There are LOTS of

> them out there. The right one for you would be fairly old by my standards,

> but the RAM for those boards is cheap compared to the generation of boards

> yours belongs to. At least, that's the way it was when I shopped a couple

> of years ago.

>

> But I'm blind, here. I have no idea what you paid for the mobo(s), what

> the RAM is listed for, etc. So I can't exactly make any detailed

> comparison. All I know is that the board you describe, especially with the

> RAM configuration you propose, won't run XP worth a darn. Yes, it will

> run, but you won't want to do much more than email and plain-text internet

> sites. For sure no RAM-intensive stuff. I just figure that if you want to

> run XP at all, you'd want to have it be able to do more than that.

>

> And it's helpful if you include the previous content in your posts. I had

> to keep skipping back to your first post to find important info.

>

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://www.grystmill.com

>

>

 

??

 

....most BIOS allow you to turn off ECC checking that i've seen (I have two

800Mhz machines running XP and W2000) have 512Mb RAM in each non-ecc 100mhz

..... (the actual RAM is rated 133Mhz)

[Guest Gary S. Terhune]

Re: (Semi-OT) Registered ECC RAM (and Windows 98)

 

Yes, I know, but please read Robert's prior posts so that you'll understand

the plan he has that I was addressing. Perhaps you have some suggestions for

him. Myself, I'm wondering what you actually accomplish with those machines,

which I accept are just within what I consider min reqs for XP (which I

don't accept as being true in Robert's case.)

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

 

"Haggis" <zeddySPAM@MEeastlink.ca> wrote in message

news:Oc3PJtfwIHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> ...most BIOS allow you to turn off ECC checking that i've seen (I have two

> 800Mhz machines running XP and W2000) have 512Mb RAM in each non-ecc

> 100mhz .... (the actual RAM is rated 133Mhz)

>

[Guest Franc Zabkar]

Re: (Semi-OT) Registered ECC RAM (and Windows 98)

 

On Thu, 29 May 2008 11:22:32 -0700 (PDT), rpgs rock dvds

<rpgsrockdvds@hotmail.co.uk> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>Having re-read the Supermicro P6SBA (I have revision 2.0) mobo manual

>(unfortunately only the manual for revision 4.0 exists online) what

>must be about a dozen times now, the penny has *finally* dropped and I

>now understand exactly type of RAM it supports.

>

>I'd quite like 512mb of memory for my Win98 boxes. It would be nice

>to dual-boot them with XP, and so this amount of RAM would be a good

>idea I think.

>

>However, in order to get this much RAM onboard, the RAM sticks must be

>registered. I've found some registered sticks online (which are also

>ECC.) The mobo manual says it supports both registered and ECC RAM,

>so that's OK I think.

>

>I guess my principal query is simply - will registered ECC RAM get

>along fine with Windows 98 (and XP) ? I've heard this type of memory

>slows things down a little bit, but would this decent amount of memory

>more than make up for any "slowdowns" that this special type of memory

>has on a mobo?

>

>Alternatively, I could go for unregistered (non-ECC) SDRAM, but I'm

>limited to a max of 384mb for this type of RAM.

>

>I'm tempted to go for the registered ECC stuff...

 

FWIW, I checked the ECC and non-ECC prices for 256MB PC133 SDRAM

modules and found them to differ by about 40% for some vendors.

 

AFAICT, enabling ECC will slow you down a little. However, at least

one person seems to have had the opposite experience:

 

BIOS Settings: DRAM Integrity Mode (ECC) - Disabled vs. Parity vs.

ECC2 vs. ECC1:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/lae2/fx83dinteg/fx83dinteg.htm

 

Note that the default setting in your BIOS's "Advanced Chipset Setup"

is "None" for "DRAM Integrity Mode". I'm not sure what the ECC1 and

ECC2 settings mean, but I suspect one may be ECC (error checking and

correction) whereas the other may be EC (checking but no correction).

>Any thoughts please - thanks very much.

>

>Best regards, Robert.

 

This is what Crucial ...

http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=SUPER%20P6SBA

 

.... and Kingston are showing for your motherboard:

http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator_new/modelsinfo.asp?SysID=24658&mfr=Supermicro&model=P6SBA+Motherboard&root=&LinkBack=&Sys=24658-Supermicro-P6SBA+Motherboard&distributor=0&submit1=Search

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6s8krb

 

Crucial offers PC133 non-parity unbuffered SDR SDRAM whereas Kingston

offers only PC100.

 

The Kingston web site states that ...

 

"PC133 modules MAY NOT BE BACKWARD COMPATIBLE to PC100 machines.

Systems using the 440BX, 810 or 810e chipsets should only use PC100

memory."

 

http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator_new/memsubtype.asp?type=SDRAM+PC133&root=&LinkBack=&subtype=168-pin+DIMM&SUBMIT1=Find

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ny6cn

 

However, Crucial's advice for your motherboard is ...

 

====================================================================

Q: What memory goes into my computer, and will a faster speed be

backward-compatible?

 

A: SDRAM memory with support for SDRAM, PC133 speeds.

 

Because SDR memory is backward-compatible, you can safely upgrade your

system with any of the guaranteed-compatible SDR speeds listed below

[PC133 is listed, and the motherboard is shown to support PC66 and

PC100].

====================================================================

 

Furthermore, Crucial's web site states that "Error Detection Support"

for your motherboard is "ECC and non-ECC", but the FAQ in the very

same window states ...

 

====================================================================

Q: Does my computer support ECC memory?

 

A: No.

 

Your system does not support ECC.

====================================================================

 

I find it all very confusing. It seems that those who should know what

they are talking about, don't. :-(

 

If you want to get your data from the horse's mouth, then here is

Intel's datasheet. There is a section devoted to ECC, but it's not

light reading.

 

Intel® 440BX AGPset: 82443BX Host Bridge/Controller Datasheet:

http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/29063301.pdf

 

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

[Guest rpgs rock dvds]

Re: (Semi-OT) Registered ECC RAM (and Windows 98)

 

On 1 Jun, 00:40, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 May 2008 11:22:32 -0700 (PDT), rpgs rock dvds

> <rpgsrockd...@hotmail.co.uk> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>

>

>

>

>

> >Having re-read the Supermicro P6SBA (I have revision 2.0) mobo manual

> >(unfortunately only the manual for revision 4.0 exists online) what

> >must be about a dozen times now, the penny has *finally* dropped and I

> >now understand exactly type of RAM it supports.

>

> >I'd quite like 512mb of memory for my Win98 boxes.  It would be nice

> >to dual-boot them with XP, and so this amount of RAM would be a good

> >idea I think.

>

> >However, in order to get this much RAM onboard, the RAM sticks must be

> >registered.  I've found some registered sticks online (which are also

> >ECC.)  The mobo manual says it supports both registered and ECC RAM,

> >so that's OK I think.

>

> >I guess my principal query is simply - will registered ECC RAM get

> >along fine with Windows 98 (and XP) ?  I've heard this type of memory

> >slows things down a little bit, but would this decent amount of memory

> >more than make up for any "slowdowns" that this special type of memory

> >has on a mobo?

>

> >Alternatively, I could go for unregistered (non-ECC) SDRAM, but I'm

> >limited to a max of 384mb for this type of RAM.

>

> >I'm tempted to go for the registered ECC stuff...

>

> FWIW, I checked the ECC and non-ECC prices for 256MB PC133 SDRAM

> modules and found them to differ by about 40% for some vendors.

>

> AFAICT, enabling ECC will slow you down a little. However, at least

> one person seems to have had the opposite experience:

>

> BIOS Settings: DRAM Integrity Mode (ECC) - Disabled vs. Parity vs.

> ECC2 vs. ECC1:http://www.personal.psu.edu/lae2/fx83dinteg/fx83dinteg.htm

>

> Note that the default setting in your BIOS's "Advanced Chipset Setup"

> is "None" for "DRAM Integrity Mode". I'm not sure what the ECC1 and

> ECC2 settings mean, but I suspect one may be ECC (error checking and

> correction) whereas the other may be EC (checking but no correction).

>

> >Any thoughts please - thanks very much.

>

> >Best regards, Robert.

>

> This is what Crucial ...http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=SUPER%20P6SBA

>

> ... and Kingston are showing for your motherboard:http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator_new/modelsinfo.asp?SysID...http://preview.tinyurl.com/6s8krb

>

> Crucial offers PC133 non-parity unbuffered SDR SDRAM whereas Kingston

> offers only PC100.

>

> The Kingston web site states that ...

>

> "PC133 modules MAY NOT BE BACKWARD COMPATIBLE to PC100 machines.

> Systems using the 440BX, 810 or 810e chipsets should only use PC100

> memory."

>

> http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator_new/memsubtype.asp?type=...http://preview.tinyurl.com/ny6cn

>

> However, Crucial's advice for your motherboard is ...

>

> ====================================================================

> Q: What memory goes into my computer, and will a faster speed be

> backward-compatible?

>

> A: SDRAM memory with support for SDRAM, PC133 speeds.

>

> Because SDR memory is backward-compatible, you can safely upgrade your

> system with any of the guaranteed-compatible SDR speeds listed below

> [PC133 is listed, and the motherboard is shown to support PC66 and

> PC100].

> ====================================================================

>

> Furthermore, Crucial's web site states that "Error Detection Support"

> for your motherboard is "ECC and non-ECC", but the FAQ in the very

> same window states ...

>

> ====================================================================

> Q: Does my computer support ECC memory?

>

> A: No.

>

> Your system does not support ECC.

> ====================================================================

>

> I find it all very confusing. It seems that those who should know what

> they are talking about, don't. :-(

>

> If you want to get your data from the horse's mouth, then here is

> Intel's datasheet. There is a section devoted to ECC, but it's not

> light reading.

>

> Intel® 440BX AGPset: 82443BX Host Bridge/Controller Datasheet:http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/29063301.pdf

>

> - Franc Zabkar

> --

> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

Wow, another sensational post Franc! If I was a millionaire, I'd pay

you to sort out all of my legacy hardware issues! <Reality Check>

I've spent most of my (time and) money already on my legacy machines

project!!

 

However, I do feel as if I am making steady progress. I've ensured

that the 2nd (of 3) mobo works with all of its intended legacy

components, and as I learn more about this, I feel confident I can get

the 3rd machine to work too.

 

Having said that, here is a summary of my main concern:

 

Because I am not knowledgeable about the Windows 98 (and 95) and the

Pentium II / III era, I have made quite a few mistakes. For example,

since I started this project about 4 months ago I have now bought

about 12 motherboards. I'd say that all of them have at least 1 thing

"wrong" with them. When I say "wrong", I mean it's just a niggly

thing like it only accepts 384mb of SDRAM (rather than 512mb), or it

uses a VIA chipset rather than an Intel one, or it's only got 2 ISA

slots when I really needed 3. (The list goes on!)

 

I'd say I've also bought about 30 additional components, mainly

graphics and sound cards, many of which I now realise aren't quite

what I'm after. Honestly, I'm beginning to run out of space to put

all of this stuff!

 

I would be *really* grateful if you could please offer me some advice

-- If I list what mobo requirements I need (and I've thought about

this endlessly please believe me, and I think I've finally got this

right), could you very kindly tell me which used mobos I need to look

out for?

 

If this is possible, here are the mobo requirements I need -

 

Slots -- 1 AGP, 3 ISA, 4 or 5 PCI. (If all 3 ISAs are filled, it's OK

if only 3 PCI slots remain.)

 

Chipset -- I think I need Intel, because Matrox recommend this chipset

for bus mastering, and as I quite like the Matrox (PCI) cards I've

bought, I think I'd like to use the Intel chipset.

 

HDD -- mustn't "hang" if a HDD is greater than 137gb. (I'll worry

about getting access to the "missing" space on the HDD another time!)

 

RAM -- PC100 speed is absolutely fine. However, I think I'd like the

flexibility to install 512mb of the basic unbuffered SDRAM. This

could be achieved using 2 x 256mb DIMMs (much preferred), or more

inconveniently using 4 x 128mb DIMMS.

 

AGP -- any speed is OK. If it is only 2x speed for example, that's

absolutely fine. I *think* I need a minimum of 2x speed though,

because I am using both nVidia FX 5200 and ATI Radeon 9250 graphics

cards which may operate correctly only from 2x speed up to 8x speed.

(Although I'm really not sure if that particular concern is relevant

and justified.)

 

CPU speed -- I think I would like a top speed of Pentium 3 800mhz.

 

CPU type -- I *think* I would like to have slot 1, because these mobos

may offer more older style ISA slots than the newer faster socket 370

boards.

 

Bus speed -- 100FSB is absolutely fine. 66 (max setting) is however a

bit too slow. 133FSB is probably a little bit too fast. I think

100FSB would be just right.

 

USB -- I really do need at least 1 port.

 

Phew. That's it!

 

Please note that I already have 5! Supermicro boards (models P6SBU rev

1.01 and P6SBA rev 2.0). I think these boards satisfy every criteria

listed above except the P6SBU must use 4 x 128mb DIMMS to achieve a

maximum of 512mb of unbuffered SDRAM rather than the more convenient 2

x 256mb sticks, and the P6SBA is only able to accept a maximum of

384mb of unbuffered SDRAM, which makes it less flexible than the P6SBU

board. However, I have learnt recently that there's a revision 4.0 of

the P6SBA board, which may have overcome this unbuffered SDRAM

limitation, although that's just a guess.

 

If you do happen to be able to offer up any buying advice, I'd be

eternally grateful to you.

 

All the best from Robert.

[Guest Franc Zabkar]

Re: (Semi-OT) Registered ECC RAM (and Windows 98)

 

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:08:09 -0700 (PDT), rpgs rock dvds

<rpgsrockdvds@hotmail.co.uk> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>I would be *really* grateful if you could please offer me some advice

>-- If I list what mobo requirements I need ... could you very kindly tell me which used mobos I need to look

>out for?

 

Sorry, I've only built about a dozen PCs in the last decade or so. You

really need advice from regular system builders like "Paul" or "kony"

in the a_lt.c_omp.h_ardware.pc-h_omebuilt newsgroup. (Sorry for the

additional underscore characters, but for some reason the MS news

server filters any post to this group with that phrase.)

 

Maybe the people at a.c.h.p-h can make sense of the conflicting memory

requirements at Crucial and Kingston. I can't. :-(

 

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

[Guest rpgs rock dvds]

Re: (Semi-OT) Registered ECC RAM (and Windows 98)

 

On 2 Jun, 12:00, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:08:09 -0700 (PDT), rpgs rock dvds

> <rpgsrockd...@hotmail.co.uk> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>

> >I would be *really* grateful if you could please offer me some advice

> >-- If I list what mobo requirements I need ... could you very kindly tell me which used mobos I need to look

> >out for?

>

> Sorry, I've only built about a dozen PCs in the last decade or so. You

> really need advice from regular system builders like "Paul" or "kony"

> in the a_lt.c_omp.h_ardware.pc-h_omebuilt newsgroup. (Sorry for the

> additional underscore characters, but for some reason the MS news

> server filters any post to this group with that phrase.)

>

> Maybe the people at a.c.h.p-h can make sense of the conflicting memory

> requirements at Crucial and Kingston. I can't. :-(

>

> - Franc Zabkar

> --

> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

Thanks very much for the system builders information - very much

appreciated - I will post a message to those groups sometime in the

near future.

 

In the meantime, I may just try and be content with the Supermicro

boards I already have! I have tested 2 of the 5 I have recently and

they appear to work OK. I will test the other 3 (which are slightly

damaged, but nothing major) this week, and if they appear to work OK,

I think I may just stick to what I already have, and try and get these

mobos inside their intended cases at last!

 

This will allow me to finally start to get some testing done with

various Operating Systems (such as DOS 6.22, Win95, Win98 and possibly

Win Me), and also lots of legacy software.

 

Best regards from Robert.