kanecvr wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Sutekh94 wrote:

See, this is why photos are everything. A lot of us have plenty of experience dealing with systems like these, and we can easily spot a problem with your system's motherboard given the chance. Key words being "given the chance". Of course, there's also the longstanding unanswered question of how much cache is on your board... Not answering questions like these only leads to frustration on the part of the people trying to help you.

This thread is progressing at about 1 frame each 10 seconds it seems, but I tend to agree with above replies.

And no need to get frustrated, we may as well still receive that hardware pr0n very soon 😁

I'm not upset at all 😀 - in fact it's kind of my job to try and help people who down't want to listen to your advice - this happens every day at the hospital. You tell someone they should stop drinking because they have chronic liver disease, you prescribe treatment, and then, two months later they're brought back in by ambulance in serious condition. Some listen, others don't - it's just how people are.

Some people just don't want to listen, but if they don't, then why are they asking me for advice in the first place 🤣? (my question is rhetorical btw)

But anyway, it's kinda like matching hardware components: Not every person is compatible with some other particular person 😁

emosun wrote:

And I just tried quake on the voodoo2 and it's about 1 frame every 10 seconds

Very long time since I've used vintage Voodoo hardware, and I've had a few drinks which may affect my recall, but is the 3dfx minigl installed? That symptom sounds like it's running opengl in software.

Sorry but a select few of you are far more rude than someone who simply doesn't answer questions.

You're supposed to be grown men. So I'm not answering your questions? Well throw a fit like a baby.... Or..... move on.

Newsflash , someone more polite than you who actually owns the same computer , is already helping the op.

I don't care if you leave and take your "blown capacitor detecting skills" with you. Because someone much smarter than you who can actually read.....

emosun wrote:

I was saving removing the motherboard as a last option. Because when I do take a picture of it it will be the board alone disassembled from the machine so I can inspect both sides

will be there to take your place

Silanda wrote:

emosun wrote:

And I just tried quake on the voodoo2 and it's about 1 frame every 10 seconds

Very long time since I've used vintage Voodoo hardware, and I've had a few drinks which may affect my recall, but is the 3dfx minigl installed? That symptom sounds like it's running opengl in software.

Would gl software rendering be an issue across most gpu's? Maybe there's a way to disable open gl software rendering?

alexanrs wrote:

If you had just checked the cache the first time it was asked, and it doesn't have any, then you would've saved yourself quite some time testing stuff. A board without L2 cache and a Pentium probably dips to 486 levels of performance.

Someone else's identical machine works fine so that's why checking the cache was a pointless endeavor.

Especially when I had already posted that the machine plays the game in 1280x768 decently and only the onboard gpu was having trouble , which has nothing to do with the cpu cache.

emosun wrote:

alexanrs wrote:

If you had just checked the cache the first time it was asked, and it doesn't have any, then you would've saved yourself quite some time testing stuff. A board without L2 cache and a Pentium probably dips to 486 levels of performance.

Someone else's identical machine works fine so that's why checking the cache was a pointless endeavor.

You don't know his machine is identical because you don't know how much cache he has.
PB was hit and miss about cache even within the same model.
PB did that A LOT so there is no way by the model number to know what's actually inside.
- That is one of the reasons PB haters exist.

If his has more cache then cache is at least part of your performance problem.

If his also has no cache then your board has a more serious hardware problem -
- and your rudeness has chased away those that I know know enough to help you with that.

emosun wrote:

Especially when I had already posted that the machine plays the game in 1280x768 decently and only the onboard gpu was having trouble , which has nothing to do with the cpu cache.

Also wrong.
Games do 3D either in hardware or in software. Depends on the game.
A game that uses hardware will do well with the 7000.
One that uses software will perform like crap with the 7000 as you don't have enough CPU (or cache) for software based 3D with a 7000.
- Multiple people have tried to explain that to you but you don't want to listen.
You stock video should work better if the 3D is software based. Lighter CPU load. - That is if your system was 'right', which apparently it isn't.
And the cache is a big deal when the CPU has to do the work. It IS important.
- That's why THREE people asked you repeatedly how much you have.

That your on-board video is not working right also suggests a motherboard hardware problem.
Again, you've chased away most or all of the hardware savvy would-be helpers that thus far have been willing to dick with a POS PB.
- Congrats! Good luck with that.
.

King_Corduroy wrote:

Yeah I was going to say take it down a notch guys remember HE has the problem not you, wth are you all getting so upset about.

Sutekh94 wrote:

To be honest, I'd kinda have to agree with this as well... I think we all need to calm down a bit, like you said.

Who is not calm?
Unlike some people I don't have to be upset to say what I really think. (Hence my signature.)
This OP is getting services I normally get well paid for - for free.
I don't mind doing that in the least for people that help me help them. I enjoy that.
This OP however he has been disrespectful and rude (to everyone) by wasting our time by not answering our questions.
You will note: THREE well intentioned helpers have complained about this. Not just me.

Tetrium is right.
If you are going to ask for help then show some respect for the helpers by answering their questions.
If you won't take the time to answer their questions then don't ask for their time in the first place.

kanecvr is also right.
This OP should be left to figure it out on his own.

At the point kanecvr said that I had decided to give the OP one last chance to anwser the questions before I bailed too.

King_Corduroy wrote:

I had a feeling I'd heard that it was LPX before but decided to not add that in, in fact I vaguely remember my father getting a newer mobo for my families original Packard Bell and switching to an AMD cpu.

In other words you knew full well what you said was wrong but you said it anyway just because it sounded good.
Saying something that sounds good but is wrong (and you know it) is not a behavior of a mature intelligent person.
It also indicates you don't really have a clue.
Is not just you. I've seen a lot of that since I've been here.

When I don't have a clue I do one of two things.
- I ask exploratory questions to find a valid trouble shooting direction.
- Or I keep my mouth shut and follow along until something makes sense.
What I don't do is throw out random suggestions that have no basis just to make noise.
On those occasions I make a wild guess I SAY SO rather than trying to come off like I know for sure.

King_Corduroy wrote:

Like I said it's pretty immature to jump straight to name calling.

I didn't jump straight to anything at all.
Having worked with crap no-cache PBs before I suspected that problem when I read the title before I even opened the thread.
I waited patiently for someone else to bring it up (**because I'm curious who knows what around here) but no one did.
I was hopeful when the manual was posted IN THE SECOND POST but apparently no one reads specs before throwing out random ideas.
(Which says a lot about trouble shooting skills around here in general.)
Then after many posts I brought it up and multiple people repeated the same question.
I in fact asked MULTIPLE TIMES. - Because the cache is an OBVIOUS consideration.
The OP responded rudely by ignoring all of us - for MANY posts.
It was only AFTER that rudeness (to everyone) that I expressed my irritation.

** As to why I want to know who knows what around here.
I am hardly an expert at everything and I can help more people by knowing who to ask when something I don't know well comes up.
That is important to know when your goal is to help people rather than kill time chattering.
I already know that kanecvr, Tetrium, gdjacobs, idspispopd, alexanrs and others know more about some things than I do.
Many have also shown me they know how to do proper trouble shooting, least when they want to.

So, in summary, at King_Corduroy, Sutekh94 and emosun - I don't really give a damn what you think.
.

PCBONEZ wrote:

So, in summary, at King_Corduroy, Sutekh94 and emosun - I don't really give a damn what you think.
.

ditto , bye bye , try not to type another novel on the way out 🤣

Added him to the block list , glad that's over. The page looks so much cleaner.

Anyway now that he's gone and we know the cache and all that we can continue like actual people on fixing the pc. 🤣

Personally I think I understand what message PCBONEZ and a couple others are trying to convey here.

But I also agree with what's mentioned earlier here about there being no point in letting frustration get the upper hand (I'm looking at all parties involved here) and this is what I would typically do:

If I notice that my help isn't being effective (either because I'm simply not the right person because of lack of understanding of what the problem could be, or because the one I'm trying to help doesn't understand me or doesn't see what views I have and how to apply it to the way he sees what's wrong), but if it isn't, then I simply am not the right person and I'll leave others who are more adept at some thread to do it in a way which is more effective than I would ever be. I'd simply step aside and let the ones handle it who are better equipped for the job.

Now to me PCBONEZ is someone who likes getting to the point getting his knowledge across in a way that is direct (this is my personal approach as well, but I do it in my own personal way and imo there's nothing wrong with that) but when it comes to the knowledge PCBONEZ has in his pockets, I value his input greatly! He really uses his knowledge and digs around just so he can teach someone about a subject, but if he gets the feeling his efforts are simply hitting a wall because of (for instance) the hard headed-ness of the person he's trying to help, it's his choice to not help the person who's not even trying to understand where he's trying to go to.

Anyway, could keep on ranting about that but I don't think that would serve anything, so I won't go there because this will not help here.

So my suggestion would be to stop arguing with each other and simply make a choice: Either you (referring to anyone here trying to help give a PB light speed etc) choose to stay in this thread, or just don't.

Btw, personally I'm leaning more towards the latter btw.

emosun wrote:

King_Corduroy wrote:

Lower the resolution, I played it on low res to have it smooth. 800x600 is indeed slow even without OpenGL. Like I said before this is not a high end gaming machine.

See that's the issue right now is I'm trying to lower the res in quake but am not sure how. From what I've seen the command is -width 800 -height 600. However I get an error saying "-width is not a command". There's no regular menu option to get the res lower , only command which from what I've read is a common thing with some quake versions.

OK, since I'm unclear at the moment which game we are talking about:
- With vanilla Quake in DOS there should be an option in the menus to change the resolution.
- For glQuake you have to use the -width / - height options on the command line when starting the game, not as a command in the Quake console. (The resolution can't be changed in-game with the original glQuake.) So you have to open a command line in Windows and enter

1glquake.exe -width 800 -height 600

You could also put the options in the shortcut if you already start the game with a shortcut.
- For Quake II there should be an option in the menus. But then I wouldn't recommend running Q2 on a Pentium MMX with no L2-cache. (The system won't run at 486 levels, but still quite a bit slower than with L2 cache.)

idspispopd wrote:

- For Quake II there should be an option in the menus. But then I wouldn't recommend running Q2 on a Pentium MMX with no L2-cache. (The system won't run at 486 levels, but still quite a bit slower than with L2 cache.)

Yea I'll just stick to quake 1 right now and see if I can at least match kings results. I'll trying that command and see if the res will lower. Which will help make the 7000 more playable. The onboard is still messed up however Someone mentioned opengl using software mode and that seems like it could be a possible cause.

that was pretty ignorant + rude emosun.. and most of all, unneccessary..

u ask for help, u got people spinnin their wheels trying to use their experience + intelligence to help you, and you were ignorant + Rude back... i dont see why you would choose to act like that to someone, if these are the types of things u do to amuse yourself, you must live a void empty life.

i should keep my mouth shut + mind my own business but ive seen alot of this type of trolling behaviour on the internet.. and theres similiarities in these types of peoples behaviours.. its always by someone who types small posts. 1-2 sentences per post. and someone who puts very little effort into communicating such as not even reading the their own thread, or bothering to respond to those people responding to them.

i think the way you choose to interact is unfortunate. now pcbonez will probably not want to help the next person that comes along because of your actions..

feel proud.
have fun playing quake i guess.

King_Corduroy wrote:

I didn't run GL quake with the onboard GPU I just ran the ordinary Windows 95 / DOS version. It should run fine with a Voodoo 2 though.

K I just noticed the quake cd has a normal "quake.exe" on it. When I run that it automatically boots up and plays fine on the onboard gpu. Having never played quake once in my life I didn't know both versions were on here.

So go figure , the machine works fine , all without needed to know what the cpu cache was..... the issue was I was running glquake when I should have been running regular quake.

chrisNova777 wrote:

that was pretty ignorant + rude emosun.. and most of all, unneccessary.. […]
Show full quote

that was pretty ignorant + rude emosun.. and most of all, unneccessary..

u ask for help, u got people spinnin their wheels trying to use their experience + intelligence to help you, and you were ignorant + Rude back... i dont see why you would choose to act like that to someone, if these are the types of things u do to amuse yourself, you must live a void empty life.

i should keep my mouth shut + mind my own business but ive seen alot of this type of trolling behaviour on the internet.. and theres similiarities in these types of peoples behaviours.. its always by someone who types small posts. 1-2 sentences per post. and someone who puts very little effort into communicating such as not even reading the their own thread, or bothering to respond to those people responding to them.

i think the way you choose to interact is unfortunate. now pcbonez will probably not want to help the next person that comes along because of your actions..

feel proud.
have fun playing quake i guess.

When I try to help people I generally give up if my first attempt is not acknowledged, hence up to this point, I only have one or two posts in this thread. Hey, I tried, it ain't my problem, why should I care? Oh, yeah, I don't. I don't help often here anyway, can't be bothered and things like this have happened too often - I don't care, makes no odds to me and sometimes it's funny. Most amusing is when I get ignored and someone else posts the same exact answer in less detail 3 pages later and gets a "Woah! You rock! That fixed it!" response. Had quite a few threads like that here since I showed up, one could get mad but instead I laugh because at the end of the day, they wasted their own time, sucks to be them. Future searchers will still find the informative answer first instead. Hence I limit most of my informative answers to my YouTube channel and just post self-centered crap over here most of the time.

Given, this time, my input on this thread was limited as the only answer I know is that the system is simply slow. I would not be at all surprised if I later learned that this Packard Bell uses the same board model as mine. I would bet that almost any half-decent Compatible system would still outrun his PB in SoftQuake anyway.

I actually find being blocked very entertaining.
It allows bashing behind the back while standing right in front of them.
It's rather like being a Stealth Ninja Heckler. FUN!

Someone tell the resident rock that you can't fix hardware problems by tweaking software.

Oh, and ask how running Quake fixes Need for Speed.
.

HighTreason wrote:

When I try to help people I generally give up if my first attempt is not acknowledged, hence up to this point, I only have one or two posts in this thread. Hey, I tried, it ain't my problem, why should I care? Oh, yeah, I don't. I don't help often here anyway, can't be bothered and things like this have happened too often - I don't care, makes no odds to me and sometimes it's funny. Most amusing is when I get ignored and someone else posts the same exact answer in less detail 3 pages later and gets a "Woah! You rock! That fixed it!" response. Had quite a few threads like that here since I showed up, one could get mad but instead I laugh because at the end of the day, they wasted their own time, sucks to be them.

Exactly , if someone doesn't take your advice , big deal. Instead he threw a hissy fit about it. 🤣

I gotta admit HighTreason I don't even know at all what you contributed , but I'm sure if I ran out of ideas I could go back and look for it. At which point you'd get a reply and could go from there.

HighTreason wrote:

Given, this time, my input on this thread was limited as the only answer I know is that the system is simply slow. I would not be at all surprised if I later learned that this Packard Bell uses the same board model as mine. I would bet that almost any half-decent Compatible system would still outrun his PB in SoftQuake anyway.

Probably. The system is definitely slower than a custom pentium 1 system.

It was nice however just to see someone else using the same one , and to compare the actual performance. And just that one little hint at using dos quake and not glquake really is what sealed the deal. It's nice to know I was just game related and not pc related.

emosun wrote:

the issue was I was running glquake when I should have been running regular quake.

What?! GLQuake is the hw accelerated one (OpenGL) and that is the one you should be running most of the time. Your system should be able run it at least if you have cache - I've ran GLQuake on a Compaq Pentium MMX 200 + Voodoo2 and it performed great at 640x480... I think even 800x600 was fine. QUAKE.EXE is the DOS version (the original one) using software rendering - and that gets over 20FPS even on a lousy Pentium 90 on a motherboard with 256KB of cache, which the MMX 233 should run laps around. Also, define "running fine". For some people FPS games running at any speed below 60 frames per second is not an optimal experience, where others don't mind ~30.

What about the other games you wanted to run on this machine?

alexanrs wrote:

emosun wrote:

the issue was I was running glquake when I should have been running regular quake.

What?! GLQuake is the hw accelerated one (OpenGL) and that is the one you should be running most of the time. Your system should be able run it at least if you have cache - I've ran GLQuake on a Compaq Pentium MMX 200 + Voodoo2 and it performed great at 640x480... I think even 800x600 was fine. QUAKE.EXE is the DOS version (the original one) using software rendering - and that gets over 20FPS even on a lousy Pentium 90 on a motherboard with 256KB of cache, which the MMX 233 should run laps around. Also, define "running fine". For some people FPS games running at any speed below 60 frames per second is not an optimal experience, where others don't mind ~30.

What about the other games you wanted to run on this machine?

nah the machine has no L2 cache apparently. Dos quake was 39fps with the onboard on demo1. Which is fine for me anything above 30 is all I really want.

As far as other games I'm not sure I've only tried quake 1 and nfs 3 and 4. Haven't even tried anything else yet.