Brian Frank

While going from NT to Win2k would probably be safer than from Windows 9x, there would probably still be something that doesn't sit right. I wouldn't know, as I've never used NT before, but I suspect that would be the case. If NT is serving you well, you should be safe. I'm going to stay with Win2k, as XP doesn't seem to hold anything I find necessary or worth the trouble it has (other than prodcut activation). Even in Linux, I'd rather do a clean install. It took about a day to upgrade that when I tried it, so I decided not to do that again. I'd suspect that would probably be the same for Unix and BSD flavors. Soooo, to wrap it all up, do a clean install now as opposed to being forced to later on, with a possibility for some inconvienece.

Don't work too hard guys.

Well, if you're not going to overclock, I suggest getting the Tyan Trinity 400. If you want 4 IDE channels, you'll have to get another card, but until I sold mine toward my duallie system, I had this board. Very good one too. Yes, it does have a Via chipset, however, I found it to be very stable. Basically, you've got Via or the 815, unless you want to buy RAMBUS.

I would try setting the duron back to 850 and see what happens. If you don't have it, Unreal Tournament has been good for finding out if things are up too high. Other good ones: Serious Sam and Quake III. Even the demos should suffice as long as you play them long enough. Also, try dropping the ram back to CAS 3 and see what happens. If you are running too much stuff at the same time, I've found this does sometimes make the system hose up some things. Not very often but it's only related to media files.

If you aren't for gaming, yeah, Matrox would be a better thing for you. If you want to stick with ATI, get the Radeon AIW 32 or Radeon 64 VIVO. So that's the card that ATI couldn't make Win2k drivers for. Yes, Win2k is worth it. Of course, there's nothing that can be done for bad hardware support in an OS. Yeah, I'll second the more RAM. 128 is the least you want if you're running Win2k. If you plan on going to XP, Home or Pro, more will be required for adequate function. Go at least to 256, but the more, the better. I'd also check to make sure you've got the latest drivers for that motherboard.

Unless it's a BSOD, it's most likely not hardware, although sometimes a perfectly good config gets out of whack once in a while. If you really aren't too far with installing stuff in Win2k, reformat that partition and start from scratch. If you've screwed around in BIOS, try setting it back to the defaults, if you haven't tried that already.

When does the video lock up? In games? Got this patch at http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/athlon-duron/amd_win2k_patch.html Are you overclocking? What is your entire configuration? What drivers have you tried and are currently using?

Yeah, I just read that [H]ard OCP review of the Asus A7V266 too. Asus is a safe bet there. The only problem you'll run into is that Asus boards are sold with a price tag that includes having their name on it. Other than that, Asus is good. I know that MSI had a crop of bad KT266 boards, so be wary, but MSI is also a good choice. I'd read up on your boards before you make the final pick. Although many Win2k users have experienced problems with SBLive! cards, not everyone has, so it's not completely hopeless--just mostly;) Personally, if it won't kill you, wait until the SiS735 and nForce boards hit the market and check out the reviews. While I've never been excited about something from SiS before, the 735 seems to be in a very good position to kick arse. I'm not totally seeing where anything is really bad at this point, other than your sound problem. Make sure that all of the Creative stuff is uninstalled.

Oh, as far as your graphics, ATI doesn't produce that great of drivers to begin with, and they're even worse under Win2k. Hell, you have better drivers from 3dfx, which is no more! Also, Creative seems to not want or be able to produce Live!ware that works well for quite a few Win2k users. Look, if you think Win2k is a buggy OS, I wouldn't touch WinME then.

I haven't ever used RDRAM for the sheer fact that there are still plenty of platforms that use SDRAM still, and that it is double of normal SDRAM. We all know RAMBUS is pure crap, unless someone can truly say it has useful about that shows. AMD does have a RDRAM liscene apparently, buuut they're not using it. Hmmmm, gee you wonder why that is?

Hopefully the Celeron will be able to get a performance boost, but the only way that's going to happen is when Intel drops the PIII. That would create enough of a gap that the Celeron could not be able to overtake the P4. The bad news is that if you wanted to start with the Celeron and then go to a P4, you would have to buy a new motherboard and RAM, unless the Celeron starts seeing DDR when the P4 does.Of course if I'm missing something about the Celeron here, speak up, but I haven't heard of any plans to move the Celeron from Socket 370 yet. I really wish that Intel had not cut out SMP from the Celeron 2's, or I'd probably be running that instead--900MHz C2' are supposedly good OC'ers, like 1.2GHz. Intel does have it down with heat control. Even the P3 has a smaller die than the Duron, and does produce a lot less heat at a similar clock speed. This is a fact that I can testify too myself. Hell, you only need something like an Orb to work on the P3 and your set, you don't need a Global Win for those, or any cooler that is for the Athlon to cover your heat problems. If the i845 does end up utilizing DDR, it might be a very good solution. The problem with this is, of course, Rambus. Intel needs to drop them asap. While the P4 does make use of RDRAM, the latency kills it still. Why should anyone pay for a memory technology that offers no performance benefits, if any, over a more conventional standard that is half the cost? The problem with the P4 is that the 1.7GHz incarnation is competing with the 1.4GHz Athlon, in comparably equipped systems. 300MHz diff here, and the 1.4GHz P4 is no match in most scenarios against the 1.4GHz Athlon. But either way you go, you will probably end up paying roughly the same price for a similarly configured AMD or Intel system. I would rather have a laptop with a P3 than either AMD chip, basically because of cooling concerns. And that also comes into play in rackmount systems at 1U, as you can't have some big @ss heatsink fans on it. Hopefully, AMD is still working on this issue, or we could see some problems.

Seeing as your CPU is slow, by today's standards, that may not let the Radeon shine. Also, older motherboards and chipsets have had issues with supplying enough juice to newer AGP cards. In my experience, ATI has not had the most stellar drivers either, especially under Win2k. If you havent, try booting with just the Radeon in, and all other cards out. For the Sony drive, try getting into BIOS and looking around. Something may not be set properly, and is screwing things up. Tread carefully though. I'd also check to make sure you've got a large enough power supply. If you've only got 200 watts, or less, that may pose a problem. Yeah, Win2k is much less tolerant of specific hardware, and will go down quickly if something goes out. It's hard to do that, but when it does, you know it really fast.

The KT266 had some problems from the start with boards from several manufacturers, and it seems to have gone away. AMD was hoping that the KT266 would take off, so that they didn't have to pump out the 760. Unfortunately, the KT266 didn't go too far, and AMD had to put out the 760. Since AMD does not have nearly as many facilities as Intel, this is a bit harder for them to do than Intel. However, it seems to be a solid choice right now. You also may want to consider two upcoming chipsets for AMD cpus. The SiS735 and nVidia's nForce 420/220 chipsets, both featuring DDR support. There is the ALi Magik1 DDR, but that has terrible performance--you wouldn't be any faster than you are now, it's that bad. The i810 has integrated graphics and no board based on it will have an AGP slot. The 815 is fine, except for the 512MB Ram limit. The SBLive! is not Via's fault as far as the sound goes. Blame creative on this one. For Win2k, you needed to have the Via 4-in-1's and that patch, and the santa cruz cards have been the best competition to the SBLive! This is a general for chipsets, not Via specific: PCI slot 1 and the AGP slot share an IRQ, and that causes problems sometimes. I would check to make sure your cooling is good too, as that could be a problem. Don't think it is, but not sure. Can you list your specs? and driver versions? It may not be necessary to jump ship just yet.

Exactly. And if it wasn't for AMD pumping out faster chips, Intel may have had us a slower speeds, possibly below 1GHz now. Plus, as previously mentioned, the Duron is better to compete with the Pentium III. Unfortunately, the ones that don't do their homework and go by what's on the TV, see Intel advertisements, and think that's it. And they fall into the clock speed trap--the assumption that the fastest chip automatically equals the fastest computer. Even if they don't go for an Intel-based PC, the clock speed still fools people. It doesn't matter how fast the chip is, 64MB ain't enough! I've seen configurations with a 1GHz+ or P4's with a TNT2 card! We all know the TNT2 isn't a bad graphics chip, but it's crap to pair it up with a cpu like that. Oh yeah, Rambus: Intel sold their soul to Rambus. Rambus probably would be great if not for two minor details: it's double the price of SDRAM, and it hasn't been proven to boost performance anymore than SDRAM on any chip. The P4 was designed, so I'm told, to be able to use RDRAM. Unfortunately, the T-Bird, the competitor to the P3, is able to beat the P4, although not in every situation in comparably equipped systems. Oh yes, AMD could be very well to do for dual Durons, providing that they don't start being able to whip the Athlon. However, instead of severely crippling the Duron, like Intel did to the Celeron, they're letting it keep the 200MHz bus, SMP, and such. It's got a smaller core, and less cache. It is a scaled down version of the Athlon, but it supposedly performs at 90% of the Athlon. The Duron is cheap, but that doesn't mean it's crap. The only problem it really has is heat, like the Athlon. Of all the chips out, the best value is usually the Duron, unless you find an Athlon similarly priced to a Duron of the same speed. Intel needs to get DDR for the P4 out, and make it look good. Via has their solution, which so far, seems to be very appealing. I'm not about to say Intel is out, but they could go down if they continue to bet on uneducated consumers. If you want to buy Intel only, go ahead. Intel is fine, but their past successes are only going to carry them so far. AMD is supposed to be sticking with Socket A at least through next year. Intel, on the other hand, seems to have a nasty history of introducing a Socket layout, then releasing a new version, and changing to a new socket. Socket 8--dead in the water, Socket 7 had a longer useful lifespan than that. Then came the Slot phase, which I think AMD was just following what Intel was doing, and then back to the socket, AMD also following. However, with the P4, the Socket 423 was introduced, then Intel---for no sane reason, changes the socket layout for the new P4 coming up shortly. Oh, then we've got Itanium, which has it's own socket too. AMD seems, at least so far, to keep the same socket layout for all of it's chips, Athlon, MP, and Duron. Intel it seems want's to suck your wallet. I don't know if it's thought out this way, but it's that or some inane procedure requirement for each new chip. Or drugs. Intel's reign may be up. Yes, Via has issues, but some people make a bigger deal out of it than others, and the SBLive! issues are not completely Via's fault either--Creative doesn't seem to willing to work with SBLive! users with Win2k. If your smart, you'll go with whoever puts out the biggest bang for your buck. Whatever chip has the best performance for the best price is the one to look at, even if it ends up (in a very bizzare situation ;() the Cyrix somehow ends up on top.

I can't see how the filesystem could possibly be the cause of your QT troubles. I also don't believe it's any hardware issue, but don't throw that completely out yet. I do wonder tho if you installed QT from a CD. If so, two things that could be a problem are the CD-ROM lens is dirty--run a cleaning disc in it to fix, or the CD itself is scratched--that can be repaired with a disc repair kit.

I'm confident that XP will run just fine. However, XP is really just 2k with eye candy, IMHO. Besides Product Activation, I dislike the removal of NetBUEI, which here at home with 5 pc's running 2k and NetBUEI, that presents a problem. The trick to add NetBEUI to XP didn't work, so I don't see a reason to upgrade to XP for a networking hassle. It also doesn't seem geared toward advanced users anymore, which is okay, but also frustrating when the OS is assuming you are computer illiterate. I also don't like having to relearn where functions have been moved to every time a new version of Windows comes out. I still have a perfectly good Voodoo 3 on my second rig, which I would like to keep around for a while since it still works, and it appears that the Voodoo's won't be running in XP. While this may be a nice gesture on Microsoft's part, I wouldn't trust them with a firewall honestly. I see why they are doing it, but I'm just a little wary of the fact that people have been attacking MS OS's through various means, so I feel that their could be some problems with this.

Backup your data and do a clean install when switching something like your motherboard. Win2k is really tight in the arse about hardware changes. I tried copying my entire settings from one drive to another, but Win2k wouldn't boot off that drive, even though it was brand new. Had to format it and do a clean install and it works fine. Linux on the other hand can have the mobo swapped out and it won't hiccup a bit.

Yes...just gotta love Hercules support.

The Fortissimo II is under the Hercules brand. It seems as though Guillemot is going to use Hercules as the forfront of their operations. I looked on Hercules site for the drivers, but the page with the drivers reported there were none. It appears that the only drivers as of now are on the CD that came with the Fortissimo II.

Yeah, check to make sure you have the correct drivers for the Promise controller installed, as I believe the ones for RAID are the correct ones.

The only problem with Ultrix solution is that the KT133 chipset has some problems with 133MHz frontside bus apparantly. That is fixed with the KT133A. On Via chipsets, you can run the RAM asynchronous to the front side bus, providing that all the RAM is capable of doing so. The part about dropping the multiplier and raising the fsb is correct tho. There is a thing I've heard improves performance, but I really can't tell how much, if any, it really does. Supposedly, the best way for the ram to be installed is the largest sticks of ram in the first dimm slots and progress backwards. Again, I can't really tell a difference.

Some devices can prolong boot up some times, SCSI being one example, but not always.

Shhhh...It happens.

Win2k runs fine with QT. What version are you running? 4.0 and up runs fine under Win2k, and I've heard something about version 5.0 out, but I'm not sure if that's beta or not... I personally don't think it's a problem with the internet, so long as you have downloaded the actual file and not a link to the target file.

Take that SBLive! toss it, and buy a Santa Cruz or Fortissimo II. You shouldn't have to run UT in compatibility mode, as it works fine as long as you have drivers installed.