What's the best way to do this? Can I use server memory to do this or will it backfire?
Is it even worth doing? Getting up to 8 seems a lot easier than getting up to 16.
beyond 2gb xp x64 has minimal benefits of extra RAM unless its to eliminate memory paging, HD audio recording, high end 3d gaming etc. A good value is 4gb. 8GB is pretty much the recommended maximum deluxe for that generation OF X64 windows I have found many pc's in its support window had chipset memory allocation lag. but I have one pc now from 2013 with 32gb ram that i use to run ramdisks and it has been great on xp x64 (but i prefer windows 10 on it)
Heck there are still pc's floating around that can allocate 64gb ram to xp x64 but server 2003 can too with its extension.
I have included the official memory support list for your motherboard. It has no server ram listed and your motherboard won't support server ram.
Cannot expect support for memory module sets above what this list suggests unless documented about the chipset independantly usually there would still be the case of unofficial memory capacity be un-buffered (slower access)
Another way to increase speed where memory capacity cannot provide is a RAID 0 disk set of at least 2 identical hard disks; 4 allowing exta confidence of raid 10
I have a raid 10 set of 4 disks it allows my dual pentium 3 run in simular performance to a pentium 4 with xp on single disk for example.
So yes where memory cannot be beneficial system disks can be upgraded but to boot on a RAID the controller must support hardware booting meaning have its own BIOS. I did not look if your motherboard supports that.
If SATA controller supports oldest SATA newer disks can still be used such as SATA 2 or 3 disks.
new sata disks of low capacity are quite cheap on ebay for me as new in bulk numbers.
SolidSonicTH wrote on 2021-10-29, 19:03:Is it even worth doing?
No.
https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys
If it's a gaming rig won't be much point going over 4GB as even this is alot of XP era games.
If your using XP era programs that can take advantage of ram like cad, massive databases, etc then it may make some difference.
If its just because you want to then it's not important if it makes a difference or not, it's if it makes you happy. I've got old servers with stupid amount of ram for this very reason 😀
wrote:Another way to increase speed where memory capacity cannot provide is a RAID 0 disk set of at least 2 identical hard disks; 4 allowing exta confidence of raid 10
Windows XP x64 can use unofficial NVME driver. No need for SATA RAID.
wrote:Is it even worth doing?
That depends. For games alone - not much.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-11-02, 10:14:Windows XP x64 can use unofficial NVME driver. No need for SATA RAID. […]
wrote:Another way to increase speed where memory capacity cannot provide is a RAID 0 disk set of at least 2 identical hard disks; 4 allowing exta confidence of raid 10
Windows XP x64 can use unofficial NVME driver. No need for SATA RAID.
wrote:Is it even worth doing?
That depends. For games alone - not much.
The unofficial NVM Express driver by schtrom backports an essential SSD driver to Windows XP. NVM Express is a (somewhat) more recent logical device, attached through a PCI Express bus.
SolidSonicTH wrote on 2021-10-29, 19:03:Can I use server memory to do this or will it backfire?
Using server memories is preferable of course, as these are of the highest quality, better than consumer-grade memories.
But these don't work on consumer-grade mobos like this one.
Server memories are much cheaper, too, as there are lots of offers from servers being scavenged for parts.
This alone justifies to get a workstation instead of a PC, because server-grade memories are available for 80cents/GB, whereas the inferior non-ECC consumer-grade memories cost more than 4 euros/GB.
However, you usually can put in PCx-nnnnnE memories into boards designed to take PCx-nnnnnU memories. It is just wasting the ECC bits, but who cares?
Already back in the 30pin SIMM era this was common, as inferior "Macintosh" SIMMs (without parity) were more expensive than normal PC SIMMs (with parity).
jeepers creepers one of my motherboards can take ecc sdram pc133 the prices these days but i like to get new ones i don't go second hand i mean theres a risk of dudes overclocking pc133 to 166mhz for one thing.
But I have singe sided non ecc ram I'll have to bench to see the difference between ecc and non ecc sometime
