Spitz wrote on 2024-09-06, 13:23:

Nah. 98Se is sth +/- socket 370 (max Tualatin). For XP s.478 is perfect. Notice, many vendors didn't even issue drivers for S478 era parts.

If Wikipedia is correct, the very last batch of Socket 478 CPU was Pentium 4 HT 550 stepping G1 (SL8K4) released on 2006/01/27, more than two years earlier than WinXP SP3 (Q2 2008). Therefore Socket 478 was hardly enough if you were to use WinXP to its full potential.

Intel and Nvidia dropped Win9x supports with their 915 and nForce4 chipsets in 2004, respectively, but those were marketing strategies rather than technical limitations. Motherboard makers continued using Intel's 865 and VIA's K8 chipsets (along with LGA775 or Socket 939) with Win9x supports, some went all the way to early 2010s.

Spitz wrote on 2024-09-06, 13:23:

Nah. 98Se is sth +/- socket 370 (max Tualatin).

The i865 chipset is rock solid under Windows 98. No reason not to use for Win 98, especially if dual-booting and one has a compatible GPU.

Generally the GPU would be the bigger limiting factor here.

I'd go for R9800/X800/X850 or GF6600/6800 for that CPU.
I have the X800 PRO in my P4 build (3400 Prescott s478) and I'm pretty happy.

I'm not gonna change my state 😀
"Therefore Socket 478 was hardly enough if you were to use WinXP to its full potential." Good joke 😀 recommended is 300mhz for XP and You tellin me that 3.4 Ghz was... Not getting full potential? Ok I'll pass on that.

Stiff info from wiki about years win vs CPU is not enough for me to convice me as I was playing and using many demanding soft from across s478 and XP era (Doom3, HL2, FarCry, CAD etc.). Argument that SP3 came in 2008 doesnt mean that there was XP, SP1 and SP2 😀 which my 3.4GHZ HT Prescott was more than ... Too fast?for those OS! Again, s370 processors for w98 is just fine, as for s478 you need to often sweat to make it work correct! (drivers!)

On my first Wilamette P4 1.7 which had 400Mhz FSB and 1GB of RAM XP SP2 was just flying! But hey! It's a good topic for me to do some test, as I have an Board with C2D and AGP that I will compare to P4 3.4Ghz 😀 more/less pretty similar config.

Spitz wrote on 2024-09-06, 19:40:

Stiff info from wiki about years win vs CPU is not enough for me to convice me as I was playing and using many demanding soft from across s478 and XP era (Doom3, HL2, FarCry, CAD etc.).

Generally speaking the XP era ran from about 2001 to ~2010. Especially for those who skipped Vista entirely and went from XP->Win7.

A Pentium 4 will be fine for early to mid-2000's. The games you list are all from 2003-2004.

It's when you get into the latter half of the 2000's that you'll start running into system bottlenecks, especially if running games at higher resolutions (i.e. 1920x1200) and max graphics settings.

Again, s370 processors for w98 is just fine, as for s478 you need to often sweat to make it work correct! (drivers!)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Socket 370 won't work fine under Win98, just that Socket 478 will also be perfectly fine assuming one is using a good chipset (like Intel 865).

It's up to user to decide how powerful his WinXP PC needs to be.
You certainly can't run a GTA IV on Pentium 4 though.
Why Core 2 instead modern ?
Because it's usually drop-in swap from P4 and very cheap.
Freeing main PC to do whatever.

Not everyone has space to have few PCs for each "era" of games they want to play.

Spitz wrote on 2024-09-06, 13:23:

Nah. 98Se is sth +/- socket 370 (max Tualatin). For XP s.478 is perfect. Notice, many vendors didn't even issue drivers for S478 era parts.

Which vendors?!?

Had you asked me 5 years ago, I would have agreed with you. I had a socket 478 Willamette way back in the day, ran XP on it, done.

But in reality, as much as I thought 98SE was junk back in 2001, lots of gamers continued to use 98SE, and most components from 2002-3 support 98SE. In particular, I would note that the ICH5 has some special mode to make SATA work with 98SE that similar/later VIA chips don't have.

And frankly, I have a 98SE system with an Fx59xx and an Audigy 2 ZS that would beg to disagree with you. Those are all parts that were newer than my late-2001 socket 478 system, and they're all parts with excellent 98SE support.

Most vendors dropped 98SE around the time of the PCI-E migration which coincided with LGA775, not in the 478 era.

Spitz wrote on 2024-09-06, 13:23:

Nah. 98Se is sth +/- socket 370 (max Tualatin).

That'd be odd considering Intel released w98 chipset drivers for P4 boards and XP didn't exist in 2000 when the P4 launched, and there were also plenty of 98 users who held off from jumping to XP for years. Microsoft supported 98SE until 2006, so it would be strange to just boot them off that quickly 16 months into 98se's shelf life (and be a bigger PR disaster for Pentium 4 than its performance and rdram issues)

I've a 98se'd P4 Northwood. it works. No "service pack" neccessary. Don't need to be gaslit into the strict 'cool kids get tualatins' range of computing to play old windows games.

Spitz wrote on 2024-09-06, 19:40:

It's a good topic for me to do some test, as I have an Board with C2D and AGP that I will compare to P4 3.4Ghz 😀 more/less pretty similar config.

Never heard of this "revolutionary and innovative G.E.A.R. (GIGABYTE Enhance AGP Riser) interface" (quoted verbatim from the manual; see more below) until now.

Gigabyte GA-8I915ME-GL manual wrote:

Note: […]
Show full quote

Note:

1. Please remove the sticker on the G.E.A.R. slot before inserting your AGP graphics card.
2. G.E.A.R. interface is designed to provide a temporary AGP solution before the mass availability of PCI Express graphics card. It is suggested to use PCI Express X 16 interface graphics card to avoid the damage of your AGP graphics card.
3. G.E.A.R. interface is created through PCI interface signal and voltage switching to AGP interface, due to this technical specification difference, it might cause AGP graphics card life-span shortens.
4. Please view the graphics cards support list currently validated by GIGABYTE enginneers. For more updated information, please logon to GIGABYTE website at http://www.gigabyte.com.tw

Yes, the manual had two "n" for "enginneers."

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-06, 21:15:

Most vendors dropped 98SE around the time of the PCI-E migration which coincided with LGA775, not in the 478 era.

IIRC Intel announced 915 series chipset in June 2004, adding DDR2 while dropping Win9x supports (for the record, AMD announced Socket 939 in the same month). The market back then still had tons of motherboards using 8xx series or non-Intel chipsets that supported Win9x, however. It took two more years for Microsoft to drop Win98SE / WinME support, Intel to stop making S478 CPU, and AMD to stop making S939 CPU, all in 2006. IMHO that was the time when Win9x finally dropped the curtain.

leileilol wrote on 2024-09-06, 21:18:

I've a 98se'd P4 Northwood. it works. No "service pack" neccessary. Don't need to be gaslit into the strict 'cool kids get tualatins' range of computing to play old windows games.

IMHO Northwood was the only NetBurst CPU I'd like to own and keep: Willamette had performance issues and need RDRAM, Prescott was too hot, and Cedar Mill was too late as C2D was already around the corner. But that's just my personal PoV. 😉

leileilol wrote on 2024-09-06, 21:18:

there were also plenty of 98 users who held off from jumping to XP for years.

Or opted for dual booting. My moves from 98 to XP and XP to Win7 involved dual-booting those OS's for a time.

dormcat wrote on 2024-09-06, 22:06:

Cedar Mill was too late as C2D was already around the corner. But that's just my personal PoV. 😉

I'm still of the belief that Cedar Mill processors (specifically D0 stepping) are under-appreciated for retro PC use. 😁

dormcat wrote on 2024-09-06, 22:06:

IMHO Northwood was the only NetBurst CPU I'd like to own and keep: Willamette had performance issues and need RDRAM, Prescott was too hot, and Cedar Mill was too late as C2D was already around the corner. But that's just my personal PoV. 😉

i see the cedal mill as more of a transitional cpu as all supported the 64bit instruction set, its like intel was thinking ahead to prepare people for the jump to 64bit Os's, before switching to the dual cores.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-09-06, 22:39:

I'm still of the belief that Cedar Mill processors (specifically D0 stepping) are under-appreciated for retro PC use. 😁

i agree definitely under appreciated, i've got a celeron D 360 3.46ghz ive owned since 2006, it allowed me to jump from xp x86 to vista x64, it also powered my hackintosh back in the day with 10.5.2 which outperformed xp on the same hardware, its outlasted a couple of mother boards that have died and is still going strong after 18years, its currently powering my dual boot dos-98/xp system.

DudeFace wrote on 2024-09-07, 07:26:

dormcat wrote on 2024-09-06, 22:06:

IMHO Northwood was the only NetBurst CPU I'd like to own and keep: Willamette had performance issues and need RDRAM, Prescott was too hot, and Cedar Mill was too late as C2D was already around the corner. But that's just my personal PoV. 😉

i see the cedal mill as more of a transitional cpu as all supported the 64bit instruction set, its like intel was thinking ahead to prepare people for the jump to 64bit Os's, before switching to the dual cores.

Funny thing is, Intel sold a lot of Cedar Mills and Preslers that landed into Dell OptiPlexes and the like - C2 was supply constrained for a while, and so the 'default' option for generic business desktops remained Hotburst.

I suspect none of those machines ever ran any OS other than 32-bit XP.

(And I would further add that Intel was probably super-angry at the time about the whole AMD64/x64 thing. Legend has it that when Itanium (IA-64) started to look like it was going sideways, Microsoft told Intel that they were not going to port NT to some new incompatible Intel 64-bit x86 extension, so... Intel had to implement amd64. Also, I wonder when Intel fully gave up on the idea of IA-64 on the desktop...)

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-07, 13:27:

Funny thing is, Intel sold a lot of Cedar Mills and Preslers that landed into Dell OptiPlexes and the like - C2 was supply constrained for a while, and so the 'default' option for generic business desktops remained Hotburst.

I suspect none of those machines ever ran any OS other than 32-bit XP.

(And I would further add that Intel was probably super-angry at the time about the whole AMD64/x64 thing. Legend has it that when Itanium (IA-64) started to look like it was going sideways, Microsoft told Intel that they were not going to port NT to some new incompatible Intel 64-bit x86 extension, so... Intel had to implement amd64. Also, I wonder when Intel fully gave up on the idea of IA-64 on the desktop...)

yeah my cedar mill celeron came from a packard bell which was running xp x86, i think the problem with IA-64 is it wasnt really suited to the average consumer especially as it was incompatible with existing x86 Os's, and the average consumer was still running 32bit Os's even when vista first released in 2007 and as late as win8/win 10.

amd beat intel to the punch, and intel had no choice but to rethink and follow suit, either that or just drop x86 support altogether and force everyone to upgrade to x64 cpu's & Os's, and screwing everyone over in the process, kind of like how intel and motherboard manufacturers dropped win7 support and forced everyone to upgrade to windows 10, then they screwed everyone over again by bringing in the TPM requirement for win 11,

i built my dad a new pc in early 2021 and since the board doesn't have support for a TPM he couldn't even run the latest Os. absolute joke!

DudeFace wrote on 2024-09-07, 17:35:

i built my dad a new pc in early 2021 and since the board doesn't have support for a TPM he couldn't even run the latest Os. absolute joke!

What CPU? Most CPUs since Skylake (on the Intel side) have an integrated TPM, so I suspect you will be able to fix that with a trip through the BIOS. I forget what they're called, they have weird names that aren't obvious though.

That being said, Windows 11 does not actually require a TPM. Does not actually require an 8th-gen or newer Intel CPU. Does not require Secure Boot (in fact I got an OEM Lenovo system with Secure Boot off). Does not require UEFI/GPT. My XP Ivy Bridge machine will dual boot Win11 24H2 despite having none of those things. You just need to get more and more creative to force it on there...

DudeFace wrote on 2024-09-07, 17:35:

i think the problem with IA-64 is it wasnt really suited to the average consumer especially as it was incompatible with existing x86 Os's, and the average consumer was still running 32bit Os's even when vista first released in 2007 and as late as win8/win 10.

IA-64 required an Apple-style migration process. You get your IA-64 machine with your IA-64 native OS, and you run your non-IA-64 software (and drivers, etc) in the emulation environment that your IA-64-native OS provides (with or without some hardware assistance). And you hope that all your third-party software/etc will be recompiled in the next year or so so you can abandon the emulator. Within... 3-4 years, at the latest, you should not be running any emulated software.

Apple has done this... 5... times on the Mac? (68K --> PPC, OS 9 --> OS X, PPC --> Intel 32-bit, Intel 32-bit --> Intel 64-bit, Intel 64-bit --> ARM). It is doable if the platform is under a single party's control, in part because everybody understands that the transition is inevitable which makes it inevitable.

IA-64, though, never got to that starting point - it effectively flopped on the server side long before anybody shipped an IA-64 desktop machine.

Microsoft is trying to do this this year with the new ARM stuff. You get your 24H2 ARM-native OS and you hope that the emulator is good enough. And because they've been dabbling with ARM for a decade, at least some of the third party stuff is already ARM-native.

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-07, 17:53:

DudeFace wrote on 2024-09-07, 17:35:

i built my dad a new pc in early 2021 and since the board doesn't have support for a TPM he couldn't even run the latest Os. absolute joke!

What CPU? Most CPUs since Skylake (on the Intel side) have an integrated TPM, so I suspect you will be able to fix that with a trip through the BIOS. I forget what they're called, they have weird names that aren't obvious though.

That being said, Windows 11 does not actually require a TPM. Does not actually require an 8th-gen or newer Intel CPU. Does not require Secure Boot (in fact I got an OEM Lenovo system with Secure Boot off). Does not require UEFI/GPT. My XP Ivy Bridge machine will dual boot Win11 24H2 despite having none of those things. You just need to get more and more creative to force it on there...

10th gen comet lake i5 10500 if i remember right, i forget what motherboard think it may have been a h510m gigabyte or asus, if it supports it i may have to check the bios, he mainly uses it for emails, buying stuff and syncing with his work computer so security is obviously important for him.

for me im not bothered about security, bypassing all the bullshit is easy enough which is why im running win 11 22h2 on a core2duo from 2007, an nvidia 7950gt from 2006 and a soundblaster live from 1999. 🤣

DudeFace wrote on 2024-09-07, 18:19:

10th gen comet lake i5 10500 if i remember right, i forget what motherboard think it may have been a h510m gigabyte or asus, if it supports it i may have to check the bios, he mainly uses it for emails, buying stuff and syncing with his work computer so security is obviously important for him.

"Platform Trust Technology", that's what they call the integrated TPM.

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-07, 18:04:

IA-64 required an Apple-style migration process. You get your IA-64 machine with your IA-64 native OS, and you run your non-IA-6 […]
Show full quote

DudeFace wrote on 2024-09-07, 17:35:

i think the problem with IA-64 is it wasnt really suited to the average consumer especially as it was incompatible with existing x86 Os's, and the average consumer was still running 32bit Os's even when vista first released in 2007 and as late as win8/win 10.

IA-64 required an Apple-style migration process. You get your IA-64 machine with your IA-64 native OS, and you run your non-IA-64 software (and drivers, etc) in the emulation environment that your IA-64-native OS provides (with or without some hardware assistance). And you hope that all your third-party software/etc will be recompiled in the next year or so so you can abandon the emulator. Within... 3-4 years, at the latest, you should not be running any emulated software.

Apple has done this... 5... times on the Mac? (68K --> PPC, OS 9 --> OS X, PPC --> Intel 32-bit, Intel 32-bit --> Intel 64-bit, Intel 64-bit --> ARM). It is doable if the platform is under a single party's control, in part because everybody understands that the transition is inevitable which makes it inevitable.

IA-64, though, never got to that starting point - it effectively flopped on the server side long before anybody shipped an IA-64 desktop machine.

Microsoft is trying to do this this year with the new ARM stuff. You get your 24H2 ARM-native OS and you hope that the emulator is good enough. And because they've been dabbling with ARM for a decade, at least some of the third party stuff is already ARM-native.

i think the problem is they have to have faith they can deliver a usable product, when vista first released it was shit, nothing from xp worked right on it which is why i went back to xp, when it was eventually sorted it was great and i loved vista, then windows 7 released that was also shit as nothing from vista worked on it, again i went back to vista until they finally got 7 properly sorted to the point where it would run any random programs/software from previous Os's, as for ARM processors acorn brought us those in the late 80's with the archimedes, and now they are in literally everything, they will never die. 🤣