leileilol wrote on 2021-12-02, 07:21:

Tile rendering should be on the Intel GMA iirc, as that's where the desktop usage of PowerVR's graphics patents went into after PVR were over with the discrete card market and gained foothold in mobile chips.

I believe it is also in use in the Xe architecture.

The IBM model 55 i had once, did have a couple of misplaced and missized PCI slots.

The Tseng ET4000 w32 I had was a weird Chinese brand, better go for trident as it is a better known brand.

The Compaq 486 I had in the day was fast because it ram windows 95. It had no L2 cache though.

Celeron is bad, underperforming and generally unusable.

waterbeesje wrote on 2021-12-02, 08:37:

Celeron is bad, underperforming and generally unusable.

I agree with this one! and I still think so for no reason what so ever 🤣 🤣

I thought ati cards dont support 8-bit paletted textures but then I realized that 2 ati rage cards that I own both support it.

Joakim wrote on 2021-12-02, 11:30:

waterbeesje wrote on 2021-12-02, 08:37:

Celeron is bad, underperforming and generally unusable.

I agree with this one! and I still think so for no reason what so ever 🤣 🤣

Well.. There was the original Celeron 300 that actually started all this - which was true for that particular CPU, for the most part.

waterbeesje wrote on 2021-12-02, 08:37:

The Tseng ET4000 w32 I had was a weird Chinese brand, better go for trident as it is a better known brand.

I'll gladly give you a Trident for your Tseng. xD

appiah4 wrote on 2021-12-02, 12:04:

Joakim wrote on 2021-12-02, 11:30:

waterbeesje wrote on 2021-12-02, 08:37:

Celeron is bad, underperforming and generally unusable.

I agree with this one! and I still think so for no reason what so ever 🤣 🤣

Well.. There was the original Celeron 300 that actually started all this - which was true for that particular CPU, for the most part.

And all the NetBurst Celerons. But especially the older Willamette and late Prescott Celeron Ds. I especially don't understand the D. You'd expect that a non-performance oriented budget model would be at least cold, but it produced as much heat as the Pentium D, but with even more abysmal performance. I think the Celeron could thank it's bad reputation to these more than the Celeron 300. At least after those there were the budget king Celeron A series.

Baoran wrote on 2021-12-02, 11:44:

I thought ati cards dont support 8-bit paletted textures but then I realized that 2 ati rage cards that I own both support it.

From what I gather, ATi ditched support for paletted textures starting with their first Radeon cards.

It's interesting that their Rage line of cards seems to support it. I'd be curious to see whether it supports table fog as well. Feel free to share your findings in this thread: Table Fog & 8-bit Paletted Textures

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-12-02, 12:41:

Baoran wrote on 2021-12-02, 11:44:

I thought ati cards dont support 8-bit paletted textures but then I realized that 2 ati rage cards that I own both support it.

From what I gather, ATi ditched support for paletted textures starting with their first Radeon cards.

It's interesting that their Rage line of cards seems to support it. I'd be curious to see whether it supports table fog as well. Feel free to share your findings in this thread: Table Fog & 8-bit Paletted Textures

IIRC they don't suppor tablefog. They also are pretty bad at bilinear filtering.

appiah4 wrote on 2021-12-02, 12:04:

Joakim wrote on 2021-12-02, 11:30:

waterbeesje wrote on 2021-12-02, 08:37:

Celeron is bad, underperforming and generally unusable.

I agree with this one! and I still think so for no reason what so ever 🤣 🤣

Well.. There was the original Celeron 300 that actually started all this - which was true for that particular CPU, for the most part.

The Celeron 300a mendocino core was not a bad cpu its integrated l2 cache gived it an advantage over the Pii in some cases and it is famous for being a good overclocker, it could run at 100mhz fsb instead of 66. It was the only one good Celeron

2 related things I believed in 1999, but not for long.

1. Antivirus software is a waste of time.
Later that Year Chernobyl Virus kills my motherboard bios by writing garbage to the bootblock.

2. I can upgrade to a Super socket 7 board with K6-2 500 and I will get a massive fps increase with my Voodoo1
I learned all about video card bottlenecking right there.
I then bought a TNT2-Pro which then caused the cpu to be a bottleneck.

#1 thing is that I thought I knew how to build a PC without cutting myself unknowingly and leaving bloody fingerprints everywhere.

#2 thing is that maybe there really is a way to make a Packard Bell run well enough.

appiah4 wrote on 2021-12-02, 07:46:

leileilol wrote on 2021-12-02, 07:21:

Tile rendering should be on the Intel GMA iirc, as that's where the desktop usage of PowerVR's graphics patents went into after PVR were over with the discrete card market and gained foothold in mobile chips.

I believe it is also in use in the Xe architecture.

The GMA PVR based edition didn't get supported very long at all, it was in some dual core atoms/chipsets, and didn't get windows 8 or 10 drivers. Irritating, I can run w10 on my slow old netbooks with GMA 950 but wifeys "fast" (for atom) netbook is stuck on w7

waterbeesje wrote on 2021-12-02, 08:37:

Celeron is bad, underperforming and generally unusable.

There are reasons for that. For sure, initial cacheless celerons, horrible, coppermine celerons are only "good" if you're stuck on a 66Mhz bus with slow PIIs as alternative, no reason to run a netburst celeron unless you're going for liquid nitrogen Ghz records, atom based celerons are meh. On the other hand, you've got the full speed cache mendocinos, the tualatin celerons that weren't held back much from PIII performance, the conroe based celerons, great if you want high single core speeds on 65nm only boards or conversely, low power. PentiumM based celerons, I'm undecided on, they're not as nice as PentiumM but the arch is still tractable. Intel seem to cripple celerons by alternately putting a tiny pebble in their shoe, or blasting one foot point blank with a shotgun, there's barely any in between.

I thought Windows ME was bad. Boy was I wrong! xD 😜

I also thought all Pentium 4s were bad but Northwood is actually pretty decent.

appiah4 wrote on 2021-12-02, 12:45:

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-12-02, 12:41:

Baoran wrote on 2021-12-02, 11:44:

I thought ati cards dont support 8-bit paletted textures but then I realized that 2 ati rage cards that I own both support it.

From what I gather, ATi ditched support for paletted textures starting with their first Radeon cards.

It's interesting that their Rage line of cards seems to support it. I'd be curious to see whether it supports table fog as well. Feel free to share your findings in this thread: Table Fog & 8-bit Paletted Textures

IIRC they don't suppor tablefog. They also are pretty bad at bilinear filtering.

But the Final Fantasy games dont need to use software rendering with them. That was the new thing I learned. No 8-bit paletted textures fail.

Tetrium wrote on 2021-12-02, 14:46:

I thought Windows ME was bad. Boy was I wrong! xD 😜

I also thought all Pentium 4s were bad but Northwood is actually pretty decent.

Coming from a 1.4Ghz TBird, my next upgrade, a 2.8GHz Northwood with HT, felt and benched much faster, AFAICR .

As for my greatest misconception, it is likely my belief, in my late teens, that computer PSUs were basically intechangeable commodity parts (as long as power ratings were respected, and that said power ratings were always true) and that design, quality and durability were not really concerns in this "modern" day and age (the mid 90s) . How wrong I was . Then came the capacitor plague, which shattered my still naive-ish misconceptions about hardware reliability .

My youth with computers was a tale of innocence lost, I tell you .

I thought that I couldn't do somthing before. Then realized that if another man can do it than I can too. Obviously this deosn't always apply becasue one could have physical or mental boundries. But if the only thing that seperates 2 men from doing somthing, isn't impossible like a handycap than all it requires is manning up.

That's a hump that many have to get over I think, did so myself "in time" to save myself a lot on hardware, the realization that computer hardware isn't some magical mystical holy crap that only the anointed may meddle with. Though there might be levels to it, the first being the major components are in a limited way like lego, the second being that the chips and discretes are a smaller lego, the third being the becoming one with the electrons and making them dance how you like... well I'm only halfway there with that one. 🤣

Heh, just thought to mention that it was probably only last year that I really realised that Intel never made a 486DX-40... I thought I'd seen them, but they must have been Cyrix or AMD. I had to check 5 different CPU sites before I believed it. I think some ancient 486 motherboard manual with bad English must have got it stuck in my head, by listing them speculatively or erroneously.

I used to think that all the good documentation on testing efforts and knowledge sharing would last forever. I didn't consider how important it would become to start mirroring some of the more obscure drivers and libraries (Intel RSX3D is my latest example.)

But it turns out there's this huge gap in hardware knowledge. Reviews for tech are hard to find pre-2000 or so. Driver sites have disappeared rapidly especially in the last couple years. Archive.org has been a good place to stick these things, but they don't have nearly all the driver software that has ever existed. Sometimes, finding old utilities is also near impossible.

In summation, I used to think knowledge and downloads would be available forever. So much has already been lost.