overclocking with W2k

[sam2001]

:D
hello every one
I have both win 2000 and win 98se on my computer
I have trouble overclocking with Win 2000

I have a pentiumIII 750 that i managed tu push up to 966 Mhz, or even 1 Ghz (when i'ts cold enough under win 98 SE)
but when I boot with win 2000 it wouldn't allow me to push to more that 825 or 866 mhz.

Are there any special tweaks for for better overclocking with
win 2000??? ???????????????????????

here are the basic fetures
MSI 6309 lite
pIII 750
640 mb of SDRAM pc133
cpu cooled with global win WBK38 up to 6800 RBM

thanks fot your advise
$AM
:D

[DarkArctic]

Do you get some blue screen that says a bunch of stuff on installing a new device or something like that? Because thats what I'm getting right now.

-DarkArctic

[rogerdugans]

Win2K runs on overclocked systems just fine.........BUT!
And this is a BIG but: the system has to be extremely stable to do so. Win2k is a lot more sensitive to hardware issues and glitches. A system that is stable under Win9x will "overlook" many of the errors that cause 2K to bsod. Win9x is not as stable an os, though and even with all hardware perfect will leak resources to the point that it needs to be rebooted in a short time.

I have run Win2K on a number of pcs and all are rock-stable. But I probably could get more out of them in 9x at the cost of reboots.

[JaY_III]

WIN2K/NT/XP overclocks JUST the same as 9X
If you cant overclock as high in an NT bases system as you can in a 9X based system, You Didn't Have a 100% Stable/Successful Overclock To Begin With

Thats My $.02

[Lancelot]

I agree with Jay. I've had dual boots for a long time 98se/win2k and they both crash or BSOD when OC too much. If the OC isn't stable it just isn't stable. Another thing comes to mind though. He has 640Megs in his system. Doesn't that make 98 extremely slow (and thus crashing later) cuz it can handle only 512MB?! I've seen it with a friends PC with a dual boot. When we added over 512MB RAM 98se became sloooow while win2k kept flying.

[bosshogg]

Originally posted by Lancelot
He has 640Megs in his system. Doesn't that make 98 extremely slow (and thus crashing later) cuz it can handle only 512MB?! I've seen it with a friends PC with a dual boot. When we added over 512MB RAM 98se became sloooow while win2k kept flying.

why does everyone say that win98 cant handle 512 ram? i thought it would handle a gb?? if you want it to run faster just disable virtual memory, or make the pagefile 10mb or something for the programs that need to use it...

now that's my $0.02

[UnseenMenace]

*** Thread Moved ***

Please try to post in the correct section

UnseenMenace - Forum Moderator

[Wicked Klown]

Originally posted by Lancelot
He has 640Megs in his system. Doesn't that make 98 extremely slow (and thus crashing later) cuz it can handle only 512MB?! I've seen it with a friends PC with a dual boot. When we added over 512MB RAM 98se became sloooow while win2k kept flying.



At one time I had two sticks of PC133 512m.b. ram chips in my rig and it ran faster then my new Dragon+ with PC2100 256m.b. DDR.

[Harliquin]

93/93 93
I am not sure what good it does to exceed 256 Mb of ram as most mobo's do not have the ability to address more ( see DRAM cacheable range for bios/cache size) I have been shaking my head over this for a few years now, my current system "supports" up to 1.5gb of ram but cant address more than 256Mb cacheable. As to Win2000 it is less than tolerant to massive FSB o/c'ing at 145Mhz it becomes unstable on boot.( on a duron I'm proud to say.) I really think this has to do with the pci bus and expecially the ide controlers, have heard that going to pio mode rather than udma helps eak a few more mhz from 2000 as uping the agp voltage a touch.

Thelema,
Harli

[sam2001]

I have win98se and win2000 pro (dual boot)
my (msi 6309 lite) supports up to 1.5 gb of sdram, I use 640 mb, but I added it because I use a 3d animation software that uses a lot of memory under win2000 pro.

I dont have any problems with 98se because of the 640 mgs.

[Mi6]

this could just be a flook but ween i was OCing my PC 1.6 to a 1.9 mhz i notice the same thing it would not boot in win2kpro but it worked fin in 9x so i decided to formate and istalled win2k with out 9x and POOF it worked great...


so i was thinking ween u OC a pc win tectecs the change to the mhz....ang ( its just a big guess ) but sota knows your overcloking and ween u formate a allready oced machine it thinks that thats the default speed.... im not sure if u all get what im talking about but hey thats what happend to me and wnated to add my 3c


M|6
:beer:

[sam2001]

Here is the error message i get when I oc my PIII from 750 to 966 , the message is written on a dark blue screen in text mode:

Hardware mal function

contact your vendor for support

**The system has halted**

does this look familiar???

Win98 se seems stable et 966mhz (I ran cpuburn for 9 hours the tempresture didn't go beyond 40 c°)

When I try to boot @1000 mhz (fsb=133 instead of default 100) it works well under 98 SE but, under win2000 pro the pc reboots by itself after few minutes of effort.

Here are the basic features :

msi 6309 lite
P III 750@966 mhz or 1000 when it feels like(vcore = 2.03v)
1 gb SDRAM pc133
ATI rage128 AIW 16 mgs