OSkar000 wrote on 2024-06-30, 09:09:

So there are not much need of running Windows 98 on 2001-2003 hardware even if it works.

Skt 423 P4 hater detected...

You know a Socket A inside of a Shuttle PC is not going to do 60 fps maxed out effects Far Cry but it'll max out 98-era and I think'll be small and efficient at doing it.

It wouldn't even surprise me if some businesses at the time chose a rolled back OS on theirs for some reason or other.

OSkar000 wrote on 2024-06-30, 09:09:

Most games that really requires Windows 98 to run is old enough to run on a maxed out 1998 or 1999 build. Games like Q3 and UT99 works great in newer windows version and with much more powerful hardware.

So there are not much need of running Windows 98 on 2001-2003 hardware even if it works.

UT99 is the worst example; you can run it with OldUnreal's patches on completely modern systems (including natively on ARM Macs). I'm not sure if there's any benefit other than complete nostalgia to run it on more period-correct hardware...

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-29, 18:13:

ux-3 wrote on 2024-06-29, 18:05:

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-29, 17:49:

I'm saying that a Pentium II 450 isn't a "bottom of the barrel" system for that particular time period.

I didn't say that either. I said it would be bottom of the barrel for the OS.

And I politely disagree with that as well. 😉

A 486 w0uld be a bottom of the barrel system for Windows 98. A realistic 'low end' system for Win 98 would probably be a Pentium MMX. A Pentium II 450 is leaps and bounds beyond that.

Memory is also a factor, maybe.
Windows 9x development had started in the 386/486 days so someone should think these processors would have been sort of baseline, still.

Windows 98 (Gold/SE) has gotten certain optimizations for MMX, 3Dnow and SSE (?), also.
Especially in the DirectX runtime. 98SE had v6.1, at least, I remember. MMX and bump mapping were being advertised.

So I'd say a Pentium MMX isn't too bad, considering that MMX just came out in 1997, about a year before Windows 98.
A Pentium MMX was still new, so to say.

Memory expansion makes a difference, though.
Windows 98 had an Active Desktop-enabled Windows Explorer and was a bit of a resource hog.

On the other hand, Windows 98 had a better memory management and could run program code directly from VCache (swap file) if it was properly aligned.

This could make a big difference, because the program code in question didn't have to be copied back to memory first, as it's always necessary with Windows 95.
So Windows 98SE did kind of compensate for its own higher requirements here.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts here.
I was more of a tinkerer and hobby programmer back then and wasn't so much into AA titles or shooters.

The PC I had for Windows 98SE first was that Compaq with a Pentium 75.
It had an SCSI hard disk, though, with 1,5GB capacity.

Memory was 24 MB, which was a bit more than what my father had in his 386DX-40 before (he had 16MB).
Still too little for Windows 98, I admit. 32MB or 48MB should have been wiser.

Now, these configurations aren't quite mainstream, I guess.
But as I was told by my father, a fast processor isn't everything.
In his opinion, it was all about not having bottlenecks in the system.

So as a programmer and IT person, he had focused on RAM and HDD storage instead.
That's why he had a 386DX-40 in the Windows 95 days.

He sold off the fine 486 board that he previously had to a client and then got himself a humble, but stable 386 baby AT board as a temporary replacement.

With two big IDE HDDs and 16 MB of RAM, he could comfortably run his MS Works, Visual Basic, Win Bank Formular, Faktura, Netscape Navigator etc.

That's why the 386DX-40 mainboard had remained left installed, also:
The 386 processor was good enough. It was proven by time and didn't cause any trouble.

If it had been a weird AMD K5/K6, Cyrix or NexGen who knows how stable Windows 95 would have run.

And since the motherboard had 128KB of cache and 16MB of RAM, the performance was acceptable to business use.
The CPU and ISA-bus intensive swapping process could be avoided most of the time.

About the HDDs.. He had HDDs, 250 and 150MB (*I think*) which was huge in early 90s. For a while, at least. 😉

He did use two HDDs, because he wanted a clean cut between OS and DATA.
Windows 95 and applications on one, the documents and source code on the other.

He did also spend money on a rather fast and expensive data/fax modem.
It was a 33K6, I think. V34 or something.
We got it from the wholesale (metro) in 1995/1996 or so.
It was a Trust Communicator series modem, I think.

To use it properly, I think he had modified his multi-i/o ISA card to hold an 16550 FiFo, too.
As a ham, he had a soldering station and some DIP sockets in the house.

In 2000, he replaced that aged 386DX-40 PC system by that aforementioned Pentium III 733 (I got the old 386).
It was time for a complete upgrade l. He went "to get the whole hog", so to say.

This may sound like luxury, but his logic simply was like "I'm too poor for bad tools".

[Edit: It's akin to occasional upgrading a server, maybe.
Back in the 90s, network servers ran Novell Netware and had to be quite powerful.:

A 486DX with 16 MB of RAM, a fast network card, EISA or VESA slots and fast/large SCSI HDDs (1GB or more; 1GB often being implemented as 2x 500MB).

To ordinary users, such an configuration must have seemed overkill and a violation against period-correctness.
To the administrators, however, it was just "normal".
Programmers and designers had similar powerful PCs back then.]

And since my PCs weren't so crucial, I didn't have much of a high-end configuration myself - that's reason for my occasional inconsistency, I'm afraid. 😅
I was driven more by curiosity and learning.

I did invest in RAM and using SCSI HDDs/controllers, though, whenever I could.
The processor speed or generation was rather secondary to me.
I mean, who needs a Pentium II to play Need for Speed II SE, Flight Simulator 5, Descent or Sven Bømwøllen ? 😁

If I had the matching memory available (at home or for buying), I would have had given that poor Pentium 75 up to 64MB of RAM.

But instead doing these upgrades, I did give SuSe Linux a try.
I bought an used boxed copy of SuSe from a small PC software developer a few streets away. It had 7 or 10 CDs, I think.

The price was fair and I've learned a lot by installing it on my Pentium 75.
Like fixing an X11 graphics server (XFree86 days).
Especially the large amount of amateur radio software was unexpected, but interesting.

My father didn't hold a high opinion about Linux, because he preferred real Unix (commercial grade software), but the amateur radio software had caught his attention.
That's when his respect for SuSe had increased a lot.

Anyway, SuSe Linux did run worse than Windows 98SE on the Pentium 75.

Probably because Linux was such a memory hog (I probably should have had 128MB installed or something) .

Multitasking was better (file copying etc), but the KDE GUI was very sluggish.

Meanwhile on Windows 98SE, the Pentium 75 was usable like a real PC.
It could be used in daily life. MS Works and Internet Explorer 5.5 could handle complex documents and there was support for JPG/MP3..

Whereas in a typical Linux experience you were being limited to plain ASCII printers and ASCII/UTF-8/RTF documents and VGA or VBE graphics drivers. 😉

Edit: Sorry for the bad wording. I'm writing on a smartphone. 😅

VivienM wrote on 2024-06-30, 00:58:

Sure, but I think you have to separate whether you're targeting a year in software or a year in hardware. Because I think there's about a 3-year difference between the two.

i.e. if you want the best system for 1995-era software, you probably want about a 1998-era system. That represents the tail end of components being available with DOS/Win3.1 drivers. Of course, you're doing something that no one would have done at the time - who would have bought a PII 4xxMHz with a TNT video card to run DOS/Win3.11 in 1998? And why would they have picked an ISA SB AWE64 over a PCI SB Live!?

Similarly, if you want the best (or close enough) system for 1998-era software, I think you're looking at about 2001-2002. The mediocrity of the P4 muddies the waters a bit but I would think a late PIII or P4 Northwood, or some equivalent Athlons, a GF4, an Audigy-era sound card, etc would give you best results. And again, you're doing something no one would have done at the time - at the time those machines would have all been running XP.

I think there is a fundamental difference in philosophy here. Not everything retro has to be about running software on its "best" system.

Even trying to define what is best is going to be nebulous. If we include things like source ports, remasters, emulation, etc., there are umpteen different versions of the "best" we could come up with.

In terms of games that scale performance-wise to more powerful systems, this depends on the game in question. Some games are designed to take advantage of powerful systems (e.g. Crysis) and can scale in terms of FPS, screen resolution, and graphical features.

Other games, not so much. Doom (1993) will play better on a Pentium versus a 486. But it doesn't scale well beyond that unless you get into source ports.

There are also speed sensitive games that won't work well on faster systems. Ultima VII (1992) won't play well on a 1995 Pentium with throttling or mods. Descent (1995) won't play as well on 1998-era Pentium II. And so on.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-30, 15:58:

I think there is a fundamental difference in philosophy here. Not everything retro has to be about running software on its "best" system.

Fine. So the OP decides if he wants to play 1998 games on a high end system or if he wants to create a high end system of 1998 origin. I have no issues with either. It is a hobby.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-30, 15:58:

I think there is a fundamental difference in philosophy here. Not everything retro has to be about running software on its "best" system.

Maybe I am just showing my age/trauma here, but... I don't see the interest in reliving software on the hardware you could afford back in 1998 or whatever (assuming, as was my case at the time, that there was a sizeable difference between what you could afford and what was the 'best' out there), at least not when the hardware you wished you had in 1998 is equally available to you.

To use my own experience and the 1998 year since that's the year this thread asks about, in early 1998 I had a Cyrix 486DX2/50 with a full 420 meg hard drive, a 2X CD-ROM, and a very lousy 14" CRT (800x600 at 56Hz baby!). A few weeks before Win98's release, got an IBM-nee-Acer K6 (not K6-2) 266 with 48 megs of RAM, a 4 gig HD, forget-what-speed CD-ROM, a soldered Rage... IIsomething... video controller with very bad drivers, a meh 15" CRT, and a dreadfully bad Crystal 42...37?... onboard sound chip. Assuming I want to run the software I ran in 1998, why would I ever want either one of those machines back? Been there, done that, spent thousands of my parents' dollars on those machines, discovered all their flaws the first time around, realized after the fact that I just didn't have the budget for something decent, got the t-shirt.

A "nice" system would have been a PII 400-450MHz, 64-128 megs of RAM, a Zip drive, some decent AGP video card + a Voodoo2, a decent sound card, and a 19" hopefully-Trinitron CRT. If you had crazy money to spend, maybe a DVD-ROM with an MPEG2 card, maybe a SCSI system (this was the tail end of people like Dell/Gateway offering optional SCSI builds...). So, if I was going to go out there tomorrow and build myself (or buy) a 1998 system, that would probably be my starting point, adjusted based on parts costs/availability, whether any hardware that's a year or two newer gives much better performance, etc. Ignoring the CRT monitors and the Voodoo for a second, even at eBay pricing, that might cost... US$50... more than an Aptiva K6? Actually, Aptivas seem to be oddly overpriced on eBay... which is odd because I can't believe anyone who had either an Mwave Aptiva or a nee-Acer Aptiva would want to relive the experience 25 years later.

ux-3 wrote on 2024-06-30, 17:49:

Fine. So the OP decides if he wants to play 1998 games on a high end system or if he wants to create a high end system of 1998 origin. I have no issues with either. It is a hobby.

The answer to OP's question was a voodoo 2 infinity paragraphs ago but the fun & learning remained only in the nuances or the consequences of begging the question itself so that's what we've been doing for the last 3 pages.

I say the wealthy man of 1998 would of had an offshore tax haven to put all his money in and a GX2 with the lowest latency ram he could find for running software that it really could not or should not be attempting to run at all. Thank me later OP. Don't forget to build the best rig money could've bought for 97 Beta as well. It's only faux-nostalgia since I never interacted with that OS but I miss the general vibes from around those times.

VivienM wrote on 2024-06-30, 18:16:

...I can't believe anyone who had either an Mwave Aptiva or a nee-Acer Aptiva would want to relive the experience 25 years later.

If you give me the liberty to play with a Rage IIc I will find ways of enjoying it. I think it's only circa 92/93/94 and whatever the VT64 chip was called (Wonder32?) that I'd begin to be stumped by the nature of what it is.

I'd praise the old girl for the polygon wobble not being too obnoxious, or for the ATICIF feeling a bit novel or a bit of a niche.

A high end 1998 system would be anything faster than 300 MHz, more than 32mb of ram, and perhaps an Nvidia tnt or better. Throw in dual voodoo 2 sli for extra fun.

Such a high end system may have been more than needed for games prior than 1998. Of course, things moved quickly, and you would simply need a better and better computer as you move on just a little.

The reason why I say what I say, is 300 MHz, 32mb of ram and a budget card of the time is what most people would have found in the store for 1998.

That's rather unexpected that my rather simple question spawned a very intersting discussion about the feasibility of going for peroid correct system for retro gaming in 2024.

i am not gonna lie I am still more inclined towards going peroid correct but the discussion still made me think.

Which components would you guys see as a must to really max out the Intel 440BX Seattle mainboard fore win 98se gaming?

What would be the most powerful cpu/gpu/ram combination to think off.

So far the whole project is theoretical. The only components I have as of now is the mainboard and the Voodoo 3 card I might put into the rig. The card is doing it's job in my athlon system at the moment.

I would rather play with the Celeron 300A than the PII 450, personally.

I also found Intel made oddly sized 40 GB SSDs. You could cheat a little there. It's not "essential" for a bit of fun, a 7,200 rpm drive would do all the same really.

As far as RAM goes it's just preference again unless absolute accuracy to 1998 is the goal for what you're trying to do.

If you don't have the Seattle-2, you are limited in choices. That is perhaps why you found the board for next to nothing. It doesn't offer the lost advantages of S7 and it doesn't offer the full advantages of 440BX. So in a way, the board itself might be the first bottleneck. You seem to be stuck at P2-450 or Cel 300A. With such a limit on CPU speed, you will only have limited advantages from speeding up the rest.

Basically, while you are not forced to make a period correct build, you are forced to make a board correct build. There are some cheats, but they may rival in price with a different board.

ux-3 wrote on 2024-07-02, 09:51:

If you don't have the Seattle-2, you are limited in choices. That is perhaps why you found the board for next to nothing. It doesn't offer the lost advantages of S7 and it doesn't offer the full advantages of 440BX. So in a way, the board itself might be the first bottleneck. You seem to be stuck at P2-450 or Cel 300A. With such a limit on CPU speed, you will only have limited advantages from speeding up the rest.

Basically, while you are not forced to make a period correct build, you are forced to make a board correct build. There are some cheats, but they may rival in price with a different board.

I see. In that case it might be worth to try to max everything out. Then plan a and try to get as peroid correct as possible for 1998 or trade the board in and then spend more money in order to get a real 440bx to build a really powerful slot 1 machine.

i will sleep over it few nights and then make my final decision.

thanks a lot for making things clear.

Does anybody else remember spending as much time making 98 work as working on 98?

Not sure if I would have an over clocked under cooled Celeron or a Pentium II 450...
Of course these days coolers are easy to find but they were a bit thin on the ground where I lived back then, you had to get lucky at a computer fair to get a cooler that would actually do it.

I must say I would like to relive those times too, I have nothing of my pre Pentium III days left now.

I wouldnt mind playing C&C Red Alert for Windows 95 on a system from back then... or Resident Evil.

Intel Socket 370 Motherboard.
AMD Motherboard with Duron 600 or faster
Pentium III @ 933mhz or Faster
256mb Memory for Best Performance
SSD or CF card drive
Voodoo-3-3000 AGP video card
Nvidia AGP video card
Creative Audigy 2zs sound card
Terratec DMX6 sound card
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz sound card
Sound blaster live 5.1 sound card
3com TX 100mb/s network card
DvD drive
52x CDROM drive
3.5 inch floppy drive

Windows98se with sP3 core updates and Directx-9

predator_085 wrote on 2024-07-02, 11:26:

ux-3 wrote on 2024-07-02, 09:51:

If you don't have the Seattle-2, you are limited in choices. That is perhaps why you found the board for next to nothing. It doesn't offer the lost advantages of S7 and it doesn't offer the full advantages of 440BX. So in a way, the board itself might be the first bottleneck. You seem to be stuck at P2-450 or Cel 300A. With such a limit on CPU speed, you will only have limited advantages from speeding up the rest.

Basically, while you are not forced to make a period correct build, you are forced to make a board correct build. There are some cheats, but they may rival in price with a different board.

Then plan a and try to get as peroid correct as possible for 1998 or trade the board in and then spend more money in order to get a real 440bx to build a really powerful slot 1 machine.

In case you want period correctness, I'd say you are set. What you have seems to fit.
If you aim for a powerful machine however, you should ask yourself: powerful for what? A specific OS (like win98) ? A specific piece of hardware (3.3V AGP card)? A specific set of games? Whatever you pick might give you a different answer.
The only reason why I still have a 440BX is my interest in using 3dfx. They require 3.3V, which limits me to certain boards. I could have decided on earlier VIA chipsets (in fact, I tried some) or 440BX. While VIA/Athlon-XP won the speed award, P3/440BX won on stability and price at the time. Perhaps I had bad luck with Via/AthlonXP repeatedly. I don't remember them well up to KT333. Others are happier...
My fast win98 build runs on a c2d at 2-3 times the speed of that P3-1000. It can do 3dfx with a Voodoo² SLI.
Before you decide on what you build, it might help to decide what you want to do with it!

predator_085 wrote on 2024-07-02, 11:26:

I see. In that case it might be worth to try to max everything out. Then plan a and try to get as peroid correct as possible fo […]
Show full quote

ux-3 wrote on 2024-07-02, 09:51:

If you don't have the Seattle-2, you are limited in choices. That is perhaps why you found the board for next to nothing. It doesn't offer the lost advantages of S7 and it doesn't offer the full advantages of 440BX. So in a way, the board itself might be the first bottleneck. You seem to be stuck at P2-450 or Cel 300A. With such a limit on CPU speed, you will only have limited advantages from speeding up the rest.

Basically, while you are not forced to make a period correct build, you are forced to make a board correct build. There are some cheats, but they may rival in price with a different board.

I see. In that case it might be worth to try to max everything out. Then plan a and try to get as peroid correct as possible for 1998 or trade the board in and then spend more money in order to get a real 440bx to build a really powerful slot 1 machine.

i will sleep over it few nights and then make my final decision.

thanks a lot for making things clear.

The question is, what's the supply of later 440BX boards like? And matching processors? What you really want is one of the high-clocked 100MHz FSB coppermines, in either slot 1 or (if you find the rare socket 370 board) socket 370 flavour.

Then pair that with a good video card, a later ISA sound card (AWE64? although again, those are not cheap...), and... boom, excellent late Win98SE system that can drop into DOS mode.

Except, of course, for parts supply - everybody has already built tons of those systems.

@ux-3 I want 2 different things that are contradictory so I have to choose between 2 diffent options.

Option 1 is having a peroid correct 1998 gaming rig for nostalgic reasons. I get my first pc around that time. It was a p2 233 mhz and I have always dreamed of having very fast pentium 2 with Voodoo 2 card.

Option 1 is using the advantages of slot 1 system in general. Having a high powered system that is good for win 98se gaming and with good DOS capabilities as well. Especially the option to use a ISA card is essential for having good sound in Dos.

VivienM wrote on 2024-07-02, 22:11:

The question is, what's the supply of later 440BX boards like? And matching processors? What you really want is one of the high- […]
Show full quote

predator_085 wrote on 2024-07-02, 11:26:

I see. In that case it might be worth to try to max everything out. Then plan a and try to get as peroid correct as possible fo […]
Show full quote

ux-3 wrote on 2024-07-02, 09:51:

If you don't have the Seattle-2, you are limited in choices. That is perhaps why you found the board for next to nothing. It doesn't offer the lost advantages of S7 and it doesn't offer the full advantages of 440BX. So in a way, the board itself might be the first bottleneck. You seem to be stuck at P2-450 or Cel 300A. With such a limit on CPU speed, you will only have limited advantages from speeding up the rest.

Basically, while you are not forced to make a period correct build, you are forced to make a board correct build. There are some cheats, but they may rival in price with a different board.

I see. In that case it might be worth to try to max everything out. Then plan a and try to get as peroid correct as possible for 1998 or trade the board in and then spend more money in order to get a real 440bx to build a really powerful slot 1 machine.

i will sleep over it few nights and then make my final decision.

thanks a lot for making things clear.

The question is, what's the supply of later 440BX boards like? And matching processors? What you really want is one of the high-clocked 100MHz FSB coppermines, in either slot 1 or (if you find the rare socket 370 board) socket 370 flavour.

Then pair that with a good video card, a later ISA sound card (AWE64? although again, those are not cheap...), and... boom, excellent late Win98SE system that can drop into DOS mode.

Except, of course, for parts supply - everybody has already built tons of those systems.

It is question of the budget. In general the support of 440bx main boards is not that bad. I have seen plenty of Asus p2b, Asus P3B-F P3B-F, Abit Bh6. The only drawback is that they are quite epensive. I have also seen a Gigabyte Mainboard GA-BX2000 for low price.

The avaibility of late pIII and early pIII is also quite good. The price range is ok. What would be the fastest PIII to consider in your opinion?

Later ISA sound cards (which would essential if I would decide for option b) are also available but they are cheap.

In general I have to see it would be feasible to get these parts if I save up money a bit before.

predator_085 wrote on 2024-07-03, 06:44:

@ux-3 I want 2 different things that are contradictory so I have to choose between 2 diffent options.

Option 1 is having a peroid correct 1998 gaming rig for nostalgic reasons. I get my first pc around that time. It was a p2 233 mhz and I have always dreamed of having very fast pentium 2 with Voodoo 2 card.

Actually, this is something very satisfying. And for you, the incompatibilities of a P2-233 likely won't matter just as the ones of my 486-40 don't matter to me: If this was your first PC, you never played older stuff it wasn't at all compatible too. You couldn't. (And I prefer Atari/Amiga for 1980s software). So there is nothing wrong with building a P2/Voodoo2/AWE64.

Option 1 2 is using the advantages of slot 1 system in general. Having a high powered system that is good for win 98se gaming and with good DOS capabilities as well. Especially the option to use a ISA card is essential for having good sound in Dos.

And this is going to be very difficult to do. If you push the Win98 envelope up, you get into speed regions, where some dos stuff will simply fail. My P3-1000 can play Dos games, but it will fail to handle nearly all speed sensitive games. A P2-450 is going to fail just the same really. Even your old P2-233 is going trigger most speed bugs. The problem with Intel's Pentium3 is slowdown. You can slow it down to a level for 1990-1991 gaming. But that is it.
At the same time, a Pentium 1 mmx is excellent at slowdown and at the same time fast enough to cover a wide range of DOS games. If you have that, your Win98 build can be as fast as you like, it doesn't have to cater to DOS much. This is the solution I am currently aiming for. It eliminates the need for ISA in the later build.

If your PC age started in 1998, you may not care much for the older DOS games from before 1996. So perhaps a P2 can run everything older that YOU want to run.
We have a list of speed sensitive games, check it out.