On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:10:54 -0400 Intel Guy <> wrote in
Message id: <>:
>Trent wrote:
>
>> >> >> Does 6.3.0.1007 include Windows 98 support for:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> a) any of the 910xx or 915xx chipsets?
>>
>> Yes, all of them. If you're using 98SE, the chipset drivers
>> should work.
>
>Where can I find a list of the chipset's that is supported by
>6.3.0.1007?
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/df-s...leasenotes.htm
>> >> >> b) any integrated video if part of the 910xx or 915xx chips
>>
>> No. Not for Windows 98 or 98SE. Who is your motherboard's
>> manufacturer and what is the model #?
>
>I am in the process of choosing a motherboard, hence my focus on the
>chipset right now.
I would get an i865Gx based board then. Support for 98 is much better on
the i865 platform,
http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scri...8&submit=Go%21
and I think you'll find that memory bandwidth is higher as well, making it
a better performer. IMO, the 910/915 chipset is a dud.
>The lack of Win-98 drivers for the video portion of the 910/915
>chipsets doesn't make sense.
>
>If the video adapter is built into the chipset, then why wouldn't the
>"chipset driver" include the functionality for all components of the
>chipset - including the video component?
You'll have to take that up with the management. I have to agree that it's
curious that they _did_ support the i915 with chipset drivers, but not
it's graphic portion.
>> >> >> c) PCI-express support
>>
>> Are you talking about graphics support, or chipset support?
>> If you're talking about chipset support, yes. The PCI express
>> root port driver is part of the chipset support package you
>> mention above.
>
>I was talking about chipset support.
Then you should be OK. Be aware that PCI express video cards may have
limited or no support for 98. This would also make the i865 a better
choice as there's lots of Win98 support for AGP video cards, if you decide
to add a graphics adapter later.
>> >> >> d) integrated audio support - particularly 8 channel audio
>> >> >> (aka Intel High Definition Audio)
>>
>> No. Support (if any) would be native drivers from Microsoft.
>
>Again, if the audio component is part of the chipset, then hy wouldn't
>the "chipset driver" include the functionality for all components of
>the chipset - including the audio component?
I'm not so sure that the audio portion is built into the southbridge. I've
seen 915 motherboards with Realtek AC97. If sound were available in the
chipset, why would anyone use a (added cost) Realtek audio device?
Download a datasheet and do some homework.
>> unless you can get support from the MB manufacturer.
>
>Do MB makers really write their own drivers - or just re-package the
>ones from Intel???
Probably repackage for the most part...
>Does Intel provide the source-code for their drivers so that MB makers
>can customize them as necessary? If not, then how does MB makers come
>up with their own in-house drivers?
I don't know either answer. [Hey, I'm a hardware guy!]
>> Find which one of their boards has the same audio device, and
>> try their drivers. (Which would probably be MS drivers...)
>
>Who writes Windoze drivers for the Intel chipsets? Intel, or
>Microsoft?
Both.
>Or the MB makers?
Some customization would not surprise me.
>> >> >Why Windows 98?
>> >>
>> >> I was going to ask the same thing.
>> >
>> >I'll tell you - if you answer my questions first...
>>
>> Okay...
>
>98 because XP is an industrial OS that I do not enjoy managing and
>discovering all it's irritating quirks which are common to 2K as well
>but taken to a new level with XP. The lack of a real command prompt
>is a pain,
What do you mean by a "real" command prompt?
>and so is it's ability to have more control over it's file
>structure than I do (try to delete the MSN gaming zone folder, for
>example).
Look into XPlite/2000lite.
http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html With this, I
can remove all the garbage that annoys me, including Internet Exploder and
Outhouse Express.
>To say nothing about WPA, WGA, DRM, etc. I manage a small
>office network where most of the computers run win-98 and they require
>practically no management. XP on the other hand has been so
>vulnerable to many network-based exploits that I shake my head at it's
>use in the home and SOHO markets. The spam explosion we have is
>because of XP on home computers on broad-band that had no firewalls or
>NAT routers back in 2002 through late 2004. XP-home is an oxymoron.
>It was folly (if not criminal, and certainly not necessary) to give
>home users an NT-based OS, especially when hooked up to an unmanaged
>internet connection.
>
>The discontinuation of support from Macro$haft of Win-98 is of no real
>consequence from a patch point of view because there have been
>precious few security patches for 98 anyways. Any new vulnerabilities
>that come up will almost certainly be caused by IE via web-browsing,
>which can be remedied by using an alternative browser. Same can be
>said for XP.
I'm still using Win2K. I dislike XP, and absolutely loathe Vista. [spit]
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
