Big B's right when you goto install it'll create a virtual drive which will have cd emulation on it. If you've ever install 9x using the bootdisk you probably saw creating Ramdrive and then a couple of messages relating to Oaks. Can't remember exactly how they are worded but that's your virtual drive for the installation process and the Oak messages are creating the cd emulation. XP operates pretty much the same way.
Yes, but why then with this friend's computer of mine did we have to install CD drivers off a floppy before launching the Win95 setup?
When you say you needed a floppy was it the boot disk or are you talking about another disc specifically for the cd-rom? If it's just the boot disk from 95 you used it's now been moved onto the cd. As long as your system supports booting from cd it should be fine.
Win 95 didnt even had a cdrom driver if you would create a startupdisk , its just because win95 is so old If you setup your bios to startup via cdrom it will work just fine (or you must have really weird hardware) I saw you say u really want ata 133 but it isnt much faster I heard currently the fastest IDE harddisk is a ata 100 from wester digital(they dont even make ata 133 drives) and thats one with 8mb cache and it goes about 40mb/sec ,so a ata 133 wont go 133mb/sec lol And installing a heatsink is verry easy IMO just watch out u dont cratch your MB
RZA is right. ATA133 is pretty much nothing more than a bigger number. For the most part ATA66 is plenty, since the normal sustained speed is 40MB/s. ATA133 can have a burst rate as large as 133MB/s, but that's just a quick blast of info at once and is not sustained. I really would not sweat it as the only company to even make "ATA133" drives is Maxtor. Everybody else didn't even bother and just skipped that.
Yeah, I've read all that about ATA/133. But, I figured, if I already bought an HDD that supports it, I might as well buy a motherboard that does, as well. Well okay then, hopefully everything will work okay. Because once again, every part in this computer will be brand new, and all I'll have is the XP CD and driver CDs and such. Speaking of that, I don't have to worry about installing drivers for anything until AFTER I install the OS, correct?
No you won't have to add any drivers until after XP is installed, should be a simple task of popping the cd in, answering the questions it poses to you and you should have an uneventful XP install.
Unless you are using a hard drive controller that is unsupported, like a HighPoint HPT372/374 or a Promise PCD20276 or a new serial ATA controller (and this is only if you want to use it right off the bat), you don't need to worry at all. If you do want to do that, it's pretty easy to feed the drivers. I don't want to confuse you, but I do want to let you know of a single exception.
Wait...was what you just told me the exception? Or are you prepping me for something else that you're about to tell me?
Okay, here is what I think the specs will be of my new system. Do you think this will be good enough to run all games smoothly on top settings up until and past Doom III? Like for at least the next year or so? MSI KT3 Ultra mainboard Specs: 1 AGP 4x slot, 5 PCI 2.2 slots Two IDE ATA/133 controllers USB 1.1, with one header for two front USB 1.1 ports VIA KT333 Northbridge chipset Realtek ALC650 6-channel onboard audio ATX Form Factor Three 184-pin DIMM modules AMD Athlon XP 2100+ processor (Palomino core) GeForce 4 TI 4200 128MB video card 512MB of PC2100 DDR SDRAM Maxtor D740x 80GB HDD ATA/133, 7200rpm, 2MB cache buffer 16x48 DVD-ROM drive used 8x4x32 burner from a friend v.92 modem floppy drive mid-tower case with front USB, mic, and headphone ports 400W PSU
Also, is it okay to get the left-most, cheapest memory on this page? I know it's not good to get cheap memory, but do you think it'll actually cause problems? Because both of the other levels jack up the price significantly.
Okay, the basic version of the KT3 Ultra doesn't have the Promise RAID chip on it, but if it did and you wanted to use it right off the bat (before installing the OS) you'd need to feed XP drivers. FYI: If you wanted to do that, you'd simply need to hit F6 at the beginning of the initial setup. Anyway, you may be fine with snagging the cheapest, but you sometimes have a better chance of running into some problems by going the cheapest route. If you need to save money now, you could always buy 256MB of something a bit higher in quality and pick up another 256MB later on. Right now, RAM prices are kinda high, so unless you absolutely have to have 512MB (and that's not a bad thing to have), I suggest paying for something other than the dirt cheapest stuff you can get: something like Samsung, Crucial/Micron, Infineon, or if you really want some good stuff, Corsair---which is the most expensive RAM you can buy, but I've yet to hear anyone bash it. I personally like Samsung--and that's what's in my boxes with DDR. They have very solid memory, and I'd highly recommend them. If you go the cheap route with that ad you're looking at, it looks like you get whatever they send you, which could be crap like PNY (I have not been impressed with their quality, or lackthereof), or some other brand of questionable quality. I've never had a problem using a quality name brand, but I have when I've tried some cheaper stuff before. I'm not saying go buy the most expensive stuff you can, but I am saying that it'd be a better idea to go with less memory of a quality brand. 64 bucks for a 256MB stick of Samsung PC2700 DDR CAS 2.5 over @ Newegg http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...147&manufactory=1077&DEPA=1&sortby=14&order=1 And it's free shipping. Crucial also has some 256MB PC2700 CAS 2.5 sticks over at their site for 68 bucks with free shipping.
Thanks a lot. Yeah, I guess I could get 256MB just for now, but remember that I am a gamer, and I think I'll need the 512 for games. Speaking of that, what do you think about the power of this machine? I'll check out those links you sent me. And what about Kingston? Are they decent? Over at www.buymstar.com, I found a 512MB stick of PC-2100 Kingston memory for $109.
Last I checked, yes. Kingston is a decent brand, not the top tier, but it shouldn't cause you any problems.
Okay, I think I may go with that then. You're 256MB suggestions are good, but I would like to get 512 now. Otherwise my system still isn't completely fit for gaming. And, if I got two 256 sticks, it'd be considerably more than buying one 512 stick. Kingston seems to be a good balance between price and quality. It's not the cheapest $85 memory, but it's not the $150 for 512MB stuff, either. New question: I currently have one fan in the front of my case, and that's it. My new case has one place for one in the back, and two places in the front. Do you recommend putting one in the back only? Or just two in the front and none in the back? Or one in the back AND two in the front? I think I've read somewhere that having fans in the front doesn't help much at all, if any.
Well, it can help to keep airflow going through your case which will lower temps. The PSU fan should help to suck out some air, but it won't hurt to slap in another one in the rear. Personally, only one of my machines has more than just the CPU and PSU fans going and I haven't had any issues either way. Adding more fans isn't hurting anything, but deciding not to won't kill ya either. I've gamed on systems with 256MB and 512MB of RAM. I can't tell the difference, just a side note. How much stuff you run in the background can chew up ram, so if you know you run a lot at once, the 512MB won't be a bad choice.
Yes, but how old were these games? What were the other specs of the systems? These are very important factors. I've been gaming for the past year or so with 256MB, but I'm pretty sure that most newer games recommend at least 512. I think they'll use up whatever they can get.
Athlon XP 2000+, 1.2GHz Duron, 256MB PC2700 (only running at PC1600 speeds) P4 1.6A, " ", Both have run with an ATi Radeon 8500LE overclock and not overclocked and have run Jedi Knight, Deus Ex, Unreal Tournament, Serious Sam, etc. which aren't exactly old, like say the original Quake. I also have an Athlon 1.4GHz system with a GeForce 3 OC'd to Ti500 speeds. Game wise, they all have enough meat with the RAM and CPU power. At this point, a faster video card would probably be the best thing, since upcoming games like Unreal II and Doom 3 are gonna require a meatier video card than anything else. True, a fast CPU and a sizeable helping of RAM won't hurt anything, but it might be better to look into diverting some of the cash toward something like a Radeon 9500 Pro, or if you can afford it, a Radeon 9700 Pro. Ram prices will come down. I don't play as many games as I used to, but I am planning on getting Unreal II when it comes out. I'm actually more worried that the GeForce 3 won't be able to push it around as much. I have 512MB of RAM, but I've used less before, and I really couldn't notice a difference. As for Elixir, I've heard of the brand, but that's pretty much it. I can't tell you one way or another how their quality is.
