<A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;315679&Product=winxp" target="_new">http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;315679&Product=winxp</A>
This may help.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by GGS430 on 03/25/04 09:06 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
All I have to say is pot meet kettle.
Didn't Intel say they didn't see 64-bit emerging for several years? (But they would be there to meet the need?)
Apparently the AMD 64-bit machine has caused them a bit of concern?
Especially from this article that seems to indicate such...
Just a outsiders look here. But, Didn't Intel say in one form or another that they weren't worried about 64-bit for several years? do they feel that AMD has posed a threat? Is Intel back-peddling a bit?
Just one of those things that make you go hmm??
Just out of curiousity. You don't happen to have a LCD monitor do you? Sometimes I've seen where the refresh rate on the card is set to a higher number than the LCD can support.
I have an XP 1600+ in mine. At the time I believe the highest you could go was up to 2000+ at the time without a bios update. With the newer processors that are out, a bios update may be in order.