VOGONS


Worst cpus and worst computer builds

Topic actions

First post, by computergeek92

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Pentium 4 1.3 or Celery 766... I don't know which is worse.

I'd say try jerry rigging itto an old FX board with SIMM memory and see just how horrible it can be...

(Talkin about the 766)

As for the 423 Willametes, theres simply no words to describe how crummy they are! HAHA

Last edited by computergeek92 on 2016-09-21, 14:43. Edited 4 times in total.

Dedicated Windows 95 Aficionado for good reasons:
http://toastytech.com/evil/setup.html

Reply 1 of 96, by sprcorreia

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Now would you care to elaborate a bit?

Reply 2 of 96, by computergeek92

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Silly you know, post your idea of worst computer builds and compare 'em.

Dedicated Windows 95 Aficionado for good reasons:
http://toastytech.com/evil/setup.html

Reply 3 of 96, by keenmaster486

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

386DX with a CGA card and an AWE64, running MS-DOS 4.0 on XT-IDE with a 128GB CF card, divided into 64 2GB partitions.

World's foremost 486 enjoyer.

Reply 5 of 96, by computergeek92

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
keenmaster486 wrote:

386DX with a CGA card and an AWE64, running MS-DOS 4.0 on XT-IDE with a 128GB CF card, divided into 64 2GB partitions.

LoLz to dat build, but I don't see whats wrong with an AWE64.

Dedicated Windows 95 Aficionado for good reasons:
http://toastytech.com/evil/setup.html

Reply 6 of 96, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Interesting, though I always find something good in a part, even if it's bad. Like an OAK ISA graphics card. Slow as heck, but if you want to play Wing Commander on a 486, that card does the trick 😀

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 7 of 96, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

The Celeron D series on LGA775 is surprisingly slow. 3+Ghz feels like a Pentium with caches disabled.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 8 of 96, by Nvm1

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

The worst of the worst I had was a gifted celeron 266mhz covington (no cache) on a motherboard with integrated Ati Rage and 16mb of ram and a notorious slow Quantum Fireball Harddrive to even slow it down more 😀

It was so bad I am thinking about rebuilding it, still got the board and the cpu, just need some 16mb sdram and a horrible slow HDD 🤣

Reply 9 of 96, by computergeek92

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Nvm1 wrote:

The worst of the worst I had was a gifted celeron 266mhz covington (no cache) on a motherboard with integrated Ati Rage and 16mb of ram and a notorious slow Quantum Fireball Harddrive to even slow it down more 😀

It was so bad I am thinking about rebuilding it, still got the board and the cpu, just need some 16mb sdram and a horrible slow HDD 🤣

Ho, and I thought Bigfoots were the slow drives and Fireballs were for performance.

Dedicated Windows 95 Aficionado for good reasons:
http://toastytech.com/evil/setup.html

Reply 11 of 96, by Tiger433

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Worst is build Celeron on Northwood core, only 256 MB SDRAM, GeForce FX5200 with 64 bit memory of even GeForce 4MX420 or GeForce2 MX200, slow harddisk, with XP installed, and that computer will be almost for nothing. And also my Sony Vaio PCG-F707 is very bad, because it had graphics without 3d acceleration and on other side Pentium III 600, and I can install there only 256 MB of RAM, and harddisk is on laptop center under keyboard instead of left or right like on even ThinkPad T20 or Dell Inspiron 3700.

W7 "retro" PC: ASUS P8H77-V, Intel i3 3240, 8 GB DDR3 1333, HD6850, 2 x 500 GB HDD
Retro 98SE PC: MSI MS-6511, AMD Athlon XP 2000+, 512 MB RAM, ATI Rage 128, 80GB HDD
My Youtube channel

Reply 12 of 96, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
computergeek92 wrote:
Nvm1 wrote:

The worst of the worst I had was a gifted celeron 266mhz covington (no cache) on a motherboard with integrated Ati Rage and 16mb of ram and a notorious slow Quantum Fireball Harddrive to even slow it down more 😀

It was so bad I am thinking about rebuilding it, still got the board and the cpu, just need some 16mb sdram and a horrible slow HDD 🤣

Ho, and I thought Bigfoots were the slow drives and Fireballs were for performance.

You are correct. The Bigfoot line was Quantum's slowest. He's probably talking about the Fireball lct series (low cost technology). It was a sadly neutered version of the Fireball line, with less cache and slower spindle speeds.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 13 of 96, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
keenmaster486 wrote:

386DX with a CGA card and an AWE64, running MS-DOS 4.0 on XT-IDE with a 128GB CF card, divided into 64 2GB partitions.

Yeah, I hope you don't mean the Multi-Tasking MS-DOS 4.0, but the regular version.. 😉
IBM DOS 4.00 was also amazing. It had support for an installable filesystem (IFS).
Too bad it required too much memory. 🙁

Multitasking MS-DOS 4.0

http://www.os2museum.com/wp/multitasking-ms-dos-4-0-lives/

IBM DOS 4.0
http://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos/dos-4-0/

(Btw, an AWE64 can even run on a 286. Its core drivers can be loaded with an 386 emulator.)

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 14 of 96, by keenmaster486

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

@Jo22: Well, interesting! I didn't know that, I was just trying to pick a DOS that was just barely not quite usable for the hardware in question 🤣 Same with the AWE64, which combined with a CGA card is ridiculous.

That's interesting that the AWE64 can be used on a 286, though. I have a 286 board set up on my desk right now, maybe I should try it out and see if I can make it work! I already tried a Vibra16 with little success; I think I'm forced to use CTCM.

World's foremost 486 enjoyer.

Reply 15 of 96, by Munx

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Pretty much the worst personal build I had was an Athlon PC.
Doesnt sound so bad when you look at the specs - Nforce mainboard, 1333 Mhz Athlon and a GF2 mx400 should make for a well rounded budget rig.

However the case and the PSU were from the 950Mhz Celeron PC I upgraded from.

I had random shutdowns, the CPU fan was always at low rpm. The fact that the PSU was positioned on the SIDE and not the top did not help as a lot of Socket A coolers didnt even fit...Im really surprised that cheapo PSU did not explode and continued to work until I got a new PC years later.
I really wish I had the picture of it I made soon before I got rid of it - with the side and top panel off, PSU taped to the top of the case and a big house fan placed next to it to keep it cool...Not to mention the bent case that was from me bashing it because a random shutdown cost me 3 hours of schoolwork...

Last edited by Munx on 2016-09-21, 16:51. Edited 1 time in total.

My builds!
The FireStarter 2.0 - The wooden K5
The Underdog - The budget K6
The Voodoo powerhouse - The power-hungry K7
The troll PC - The Socket 423 Pentium 4

Reply 16 of 96, by NamelessPlayer

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I still remember the first computer my father put together for me.

It all hinged around a PC-Chips M598 mobo with some seriously WTF port header placement between the expansion slots, no AGP slot, integrated SiS 530 graphics that lose their 2D acceleration if you update past DirectX 7.0, a built-in CMI8338 sound codec that never worked, and for whatever reason, it could never run 100 MHz FSB stably, forcing the AMD K6-2 350 to be set to 366 MHz instead with a lower 66 MHz FSB.

Oh, and it used an AT case and PSU when the industry was already moving to ATX. In fact, the board was designed to work with either AT or ATX. The whole thing reeked of being budget-conscious.

It eventually got sent to recycling because my current family doesn't like me keeping so many computers, and I don't miss it one bit, though I did yank the 128 MB of PC-100 SDRAM, Ethernet card and SB Live! Value that were in it before doing so. Those things could find a new home in much better computers.

adalbert wrote:

Any laptop with passive (DSTN) screen.

"Better" yet, a laptop with a passive-matrix LCD, just the stock 32 MB of RAM, only 2 MB of VRAM, and the real kicker - a CPU with NO L2 CACHE.

Yeah, turns out my neighbors owned the much-maligned "MainStreet" configuration of the WallStreet PowerBook G3 line. That thing was utter crap compared to what the higher-end configurations offered, partly due to giving the CPU the Covington Celeron treatment, partly because the screen actually makes active-matrix TN LCD garbage tolerable to look at by comparison.

Reply 17 of 96, by Brickpad

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Not exactly a computer build, but worst hardware I'd say goes to the Quantum Bigfoot. If that drive were any slower time would stand still. Wiping the drive with Boot'n'Nuke took over 13 hours (2.5Gb) - Compare that to dual 250GB IDE drives in under 7 hours.

Reply 18 of 96, by Jorpho

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I find it completely baffling that one can expend considerable efforts and funds to build a PC that is twenty years out of date, and then complain that it isn't as fast as it could be.

It's much easier to take pot shots at some of Apple's catastrophic architectural decisions.
http://lowendmac.com/2014/road-apples-second-class-macs/

Reply 19 of 96, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
keenmaster486 wrote:

@Jo22: Well, interesting! I didn't know that, I was just trying to pick a DOS that was just barely not quite usable for the hardware in question 🤣 Same with the AWE64, which combined with a CGA card is ridiculous.

Nah, that's fine. DOS 4.0 was considered the "Windows ME of DOS" after all, so it does fit well here. 😀
And yes, it is ridiculous - you could also use a Hercules card instead and and run Windows 3.0 in CGA mode with SIMCGA (does that work ?)

keenmaster486 wrote:

That's interesting that the AWE64 can be used on a 286, though. I have a 286 board set up on my desk right now, maybe I should try it out and see if I can make it work! I already tried a Vibra16 with little success; I think I'm forced to use CTCM.

Good Luck! There's an emulator named EMU386 that claims to support the AWEs. I have added it to this post for you.
It works with all real address mode software for the 386 (it says so). 😀

I guess from our modern point of view, 286 PCs with 16bit cards must really look like a total overkill and ridiculous. 🤣
But back in the 90s it wasn't uncommon at all. People bought these cards for their old PCs because they were part of a "multimedia upgrade kit",
which contained a CD-ROM drive and an interface card (often a sound card). Some even had free speakers inside! Free speakers! Yoo-hoo! 😁

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//