Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-23, 08:28:

I'm not sure if the BIOS of my motherboard even has that setting, at least I don't remember seeing it.

You can find the manual, drivers and other useful info on Soggi's website so let me know if one of the available CPU configuration settings fits that description. I'm fairly certain that I left everything in that section at default, except for the memory timings and voltage, which I had to configure manually.

I took a look at the manual and sure enough there isn't one. I thought that setting is in just about every board that support late P4 CPUs but I guess not. But at the same time interestingly that board has settings like palette snooping and pci ide busmaster I expected to have disappeared completely by this era.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-23, 08:28:

The Win98SE system properties and all 3DMark versions see the E8600 as a Pentium 3. 😁

Oh, I'd imagine that could be a good thing. If it's recognizing it as a P3 one would think everything is treating it as such so no odd compatibility concerns.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-23, 08:28:

The Win98SE system properties and all 3DMark versions see the E8600 as a Pentium 3. 😁

That makes sense - the E8600, along with all the Core microarchitecture chips and newer (Conroe/Nehalem/Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge/etc) identifies itself as Family 6, same as the PIII.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-22, 10:22:

While I do use WinME in one of my builds, I always apply this official Microsoft Update CD right after installing the OS and disabling System Restore. Never had issues with msinfo32 that way. Overall stability is on pair with my Win98SE systems.

Just double checked this on my WinME system, and it turns out I was wrong. The msinfo32 issue is not fixed by the Microsoft Security Update CD. It's still broken after applying that.

To solve it, my install notes say "copy over the MSINFO folder from a working Win98SE installation". 😁

Right then, I'm up and running. Was a bit miffed at Asus boards and part of me wanted to get some other brand, but in the end I just swapped the faulty one to my old Asus P5K I had lying around. The coil whine it suffers from hasn't disappeared anywhere, but thankfully it's very much in the not too annoying end of spectrum as far coil whine goes. But if it gets any worse I'll grind the board into dust.

But looks like it's working great and all the work I did with the previous board wasn't in vain, had to install Win98SE exactly the same way to get everything working. I did try different things in hopes of getting legacy USB support to work with USB2 with this board but no go. At least its JMicron IDE works fine, either the Marvell IDE of the previous board wasn't playing nice with WinXP or that was just another symptom of a failing board.

The way I need to install Win98SE with P35 board is pretty much this:

Still leaves me without legacy USB support, but I don't need in on all the time. I have Win98SE and WinXP on separate SSD's and can just use the motherboards F8 boot menu when I want to boot WinXP, and when I want to TRIM the SSD's I just need to turn legacy USB support on for a moment. I've set up a boot menu for Win98SE so I can boot straight into DOS and run R. Loews TRIM there and for the SSD that has WinXP I can just boot with System Rescue CD and run FSTRIM.

E8600 was sure enough recognized as Pentium III first but after Office XP updated some core files it started to get recognized correctly as E8600. Not sure is that a good thing or bad, or completely irrelevant. Just a little concerned after noticing WinME had an update that fixed some Direct3D games not being able to recognize Pentium 4. Time will tell I suppose.

In the end it did need some elbow grease, but looks like it was worth it. Had I know PCIe Windows 98SE was this viable option I would have done this ages ago, but better late than never. Sheesh I came this close building a separate system for late Win9x games never realizing I already had one.

Sombrero wrote on 2023-09-29, 09:48:

In the end it did need some elbow grease, but looks like it was worth it. Had I know PCIe Windows 98SE was this viable option I would have done this ages ago, but better late than never. Sheesh I came this close building a separate system for late Win9x games never realizing I already had one.

Congrats! And welcome to the club of highly overpowered Win9x system builders. 😁

BTW, what GPU did you end up going with?

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-29, 10:43:

Congrats! And welcome to the club of highly overpowered Win9x system builders. 😁

BTW, what GPU did you end up going with?

Thanks, though I guess I'm still in the small boys corner with the ATI X700 Pro 😀

From my understanding it's about on par with ATI 9700 pro on avarage, which should be enough for me. But I'll keep my eye out for a cheapo X800 just in case, the system does double as compatibility box for early WinXP games that do not like GTX 960. So far I've been able to fix the few issues I've had with the GTX 960 in a way or another, so this system is likely going to be mainly just for fun than for actual need.

Sombrero wrote on 2023-09-29, 09:48:

Still leaves me without legacy USB support, but I don't need in on all the time. I have Win98SE and WinXP on separate SSD's and can just use the motherboards F8 boot menu when I want to boot WinXP, and when I want to TRIM the SSD's I just need to turn legacy USB support on for a moment.

Is your goal long-term dual-booting?

You're making me (again) think of trying to turn my P43/Q9650 into a 98SE rig, but it just seems to me that any GPU that works in 98 SE isn't... really... one that one would want for dual-booting something newer.

Sombrero wrote on 2023-09-29, 11:14:

But I'll keep my eye out for a cheapo X800 just in case, the system does double as compatibility box for early WinXP games that do not like GTX 960.

Yeah, the X700 should be a very capable GPU for Win9x stuff, but an X800 might be nice if you want to go for some early (pre-2005) WinXP titles as well. Ever since you pointed out the microstutter issue in games which use Unreal Engine 2 on Nvidia 8000 cards and up, I kinda wanted to build a fallback system for that. Hopefully, my LGA775 rig can fill that role. I think an X800 card may have enough power to run some of those games at 1600x1200, albeit with certain compromises to AA and AF.

Here's a period correct review from Tom's Hardware. It looks like an X800 Pro can hit 60+ FPS in UT2004 at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF. I haven't tested this on my own system (too busy right now) but that does look kinda promising. I want to play through Unreal 2 and Deus Ex 2 at some point, and I'm still considering which of my rigs would be the best fit for those.

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-29, 11:39:

Is your goal long-term dual-booting?

You're making me (again) think of trying to turn my P43/Q9650 into a 98SE rig, but it just seems to me that any GPU that works in 98 SE isn't... really... one that one would want for dual-booting something newer.

Yeah, WinXP is very handy to have on the side as many useful tools don't either support Win9x or have limited functionality. Can't see my GPU temperature at all in Win98SE for example. But as I mentioned I also have it as a backup in case I run into a early WinXP game that doesn't like my main WinXP system.

If you have any intention of playing games from 2005 -> I'd personally recommend to have two different systems, one for late Win9x/early WinXP and one for later games. No such thing as do-it-all box, too many concessions in my opinion.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-29, 11:50:

Here's a period correct review from Tom's Hardware. It looks like an X800 Pro can hit 60+ FPS in UT2004 at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF. I haven't tested this on my own system (too busy right now) but that does look kinda promising. I want to play through Unreal 2 and Deus Ex 2 at some point, and I'm still considering which of my rigs would be the best fit for those.

I messed around with UT2004 using 6800 GT + E8600, it ran great at 1600x1200 with no AA/AF and settings one notch down from max, but at max it started to stutter in a way that seemed a lot like VRAM thrashing to me. Got worse if I also enabled 16x AF. Really looked to me like the system was powerful enough but the 256MB VRAM on the 6800 GT was holding it back. This was on a Onslaught map, if I recall correctly this didn't happen on deathmatch maps.

So maybe absolute max isn't possible on UT2004, but almost. And I'd be really surprised if Unreal 2 & Deus Ex 2 aren't easier on the system.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-29, 11:50:

Yeah, the X700 should be a very capable GPU for Win9x stuff

Only if the Win9X driver does not have nasty bug that practically halves OpenGL performance.

I want to play through Unreal 2 and Deus Ex 2 at some point, and I'm still considering which of my rigs would be the best fit for those.

The one with the beefiest CPU. Unreal 2 does not run smooth enough on any Athlon XP/P4.

Sombrero wrote on 2023-09-29, 12:54:

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-29, 11:39:

Is your goal long-term dual-booting?

You're making me (again) think of trying to turn my P43/Q9650 into a 98SE rig, but it just seems to me that any GPU that works in 98 SE isn't... really... one that one would want for dual-booting something newer.

Yeah, WinXP is very handy to have on the side as many useful tools don't either support Win9x or have limited functionality. Can't see my GPU temperature at all in Win98SE for example. But as I mentioned I also have it as a backup in case I run into a early WinXP game that doesn't like my main WinXP system.

If you have any intention of playing games from 2005 -> I'd personally recommend to have two different systems, one for late Win9x/early WinXP and one for later games. No such thing as do-it-all box, too many concessions in my opinion.

I'd agree with that, but then I guess the question comes down to, how many parts do you have/need to acquire/etc for an older AGP box vs trying to use an LGA775 machine for 98SE? if you need to acquire a video card either way, then the only thing you really need to go with a separate, older, AGP box for 98SE is a motherboard, processor, cooler (maybe almost the hardest thing to find), case, PSU, and a very small amount of RAM (and maaaaybe storage).

If you've achieved success with an LGA775 build, a much better alternative to fiddling with configuration files for dual booting is something like this. 3.5" SATA SSDs are a dime a dozen. Keep one drive permanently installed in the case, and use this dock to swap as many 2.5" (or 3.5" if you prefer spinning rust) as you want... You can then alternate easily between virtually any OS you want, even multiple versions of the same OS (Windows 98 with different DirectX versions, for example)... You're then only limited by how many drives you own.

To switch between the permanently installed drive and the drive in the docking bay, you just select the boot device (F8 or F12, depending on your board), and pick the drive you want.

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-29, 16:16:

cooler (maybe almost the hardest thing to find), case, PSU, and a very small amount of RAM (and maaaaybe storage).

Cooler availability does vary by platform, but thankfully, some modern day coolers still support LGA775 and AM2. If the cooler supports AM2, it should also work fine on socket 754/939 boards, since the mounting mechanism is identical.

For the case, you basically want something that has 5.25" and 3.5" front bays, and those can still be purchased new. I recently got this Chieftec Libra and plan on re-housing my LGA775 rig, when time permits.

Regarding the PSU, you can pretty much use any modern part, unless you're running a high-end AthlonXP system which needs a lot of amps on the 5V rail. Even then, higher quality modern PSUs can handle that too, but they do tend to cost a bit more.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-29, 16:28:

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-29, 16:16:

cooler (maybe almost the hardest thing to find), case, PSU, and a very small amount of RAM (and maaaaybe storage).

Cooler availability does vary by platform, but thankfully, some modern day coolers still support LGA775 and AM2. If the cooler supports AM2, it should also work fine on socket 754/939 boards, since the mounting mechanism is identical.

Shopping for LGA775 coolers a few months ago, I found there are very few left. Even some that used to include LGA775 mounting hardware, the packaging has been updated and now they don't...

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-29, 16:16:

I'd agree with that, but then I guess the question comes down to, how many parts do you have/need to acquire/etc for an older AGP box vs trying to use an LGA775 machine for 98SE?

I think what it really comes down to is what games you want to be able to play. Are any of your favorites likely to become unplayable with a X800 card or similar? Are there enough games from 2005 -> you'd like to play to warrant a second system? Yes, yes -> second system, No, No -> turn your current system into Win98/WinXP system.

You could also turn that LGA 775 system of yours into a Win98/WinXP box and build a new more powerful WinXP system for later WinXP/Win7 games instead of building an older AGP box, which ever would serve you better. Core 2 era parts are plentiful and cheap if you don't want to invest into Sandy/Ivy Bridge.

By the way, you can get a modern Noctua cooler and get a LGA 775 mounting kit for it from Noctua completely free. All you need is an invoice for the cooler and a picture of the LGA 775 motherboard.

mockingbird wrote on 2023-09-29, 16:28:

If you've achieved success with an LGA775 build, a much better alternative to fiddling with configuration files for dual booting is something like this.

I assume this was directed at me. I didn't really fiddle with any configuration files for dual booting, I just have both SSD's in and the PC boots from the Win98SE SSD by default. If I want to boot WinXP I just press F8 at POST and boot from the WinXP SSD. I do have a deck similar to that in my WinXP/Win7 system and it's been handy there, but I wouldn't have much use for one in this one.

Only fiddly thing I did was a Windows/DOS selection menu in config.sys for the Win98SE boot so I can boot directly to DOS when I want to run TRIM for the Win98 SSD, since I can't boot to windows when legacy USB support is on.

Sombrero wrote on 2023-09-29, 17:23:

I think what it really comes down to is what games you want to be able to play. Are any of your favorites likely to become unpla […]
Show full quote

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-29, 16:16:

I'd agree with that, but then I guess the question comes down to, how many parts do you have/need to acquire/etc for an older AGP box vs trying to use an LGA775 machine for 98SE?

I think what it really comes down to is what games you want to be able to play. Are any of your favorites likely to become unplayable with a X800 card or similar? Are there enough games from 2005 -> you'd like to play to warrant a second system? Yes, yes -> second system, No, No -> turn your current system into Win98/WinXP system.

You could also turn that LGA 775 system of yours into a Win98/WinXP box and build a new more powerful WinXP system for later WinXP/Win7 games instead of building an older AGP box, which ever would serve you better. Core 2 era parts are plentiful and cheap if you don't want to invest into Sandy/Ivy Bridge.

By the way, you can get a modern Noctua cooler and get a LGA 775 mounting kit for it from Noctua completely free. All you need is an invoice for the cooler and a picture of the LGA 775 motherboard.

I'm actually planning to acquire a newer WinXP/11 dual boot system - buying a friend's ivy bridge box, going to put my 7970 in it, should make a nice little retro box. 😀 Then I can either take his video card and put it in my Q9650 and, realistically, put that machine back in the closet, or look at turning that machine into a 98SE machine. Leaning towards a separate 98SE machine at this point - I already have an AGP video card on the way from eBay, I have a spare PSU, all I need is a case and that AM2/VIA motherboard on eBay and... pretty much done. Oh and a sound card but I need that either way.

I did see that stuff about Noctua a while back. I will take another look at Noctua stuff - I like their stuff, I don't know what lower-end/priced options they have, and as much as I seem to have gotten excited about vintage computers (almost more building them than actually using them), I'm not sure I want to spend the prices for the nicer Noctua coolers for a vintage project quite just yet...

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-08, 17:32:

Now that the E8600 is here, I tried Quake 1 in software mode and got 346.7 FPS at 640x480. 😁 Note that this was from within the Win9x DOS prompt. However, any higher VESA resolutions seemed to be buggy in that environment, resulting in severe graphical distortions.

I then dropped down to pure DOS and the higher VESA resolutions did work fine there. But for some reason, it seemed like V-Sync was permanently turned on, despite my settings in the config file. Nonetheless, I tried a timedemo at 1280x1024 and got a locked 60 FPS with FASTVID enabled. This might be of interest to those who prefer the original software rendering look of Quake.

I also have a device manager that has no exclamation marks but performance in some/most games is poor compared to a P4 system.

Some games are ok but over all I think i will be turning to a 462 based AMD for my Windows 98 system as I know it will work. It might not be as much performance as is possible but from what I can tell everybody who has tried a S2D on 98 has some kind of problem with it.
Even some of the builds people say they have no problems on I cant seem to replicate on the same hardware...

C2D + Windows 2000 = better use that Win98.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-22, 09:11:

I also have a device manager that has no exclamation marks but performance in some/most games is poor compared to a P4 system.

Is your system using a VIA chipset with an AGP graphics card by any chance? There's a known bug with certain VIA chipsets which halves AGP performance under Win98. Also, using more than 2GB RAM cripples Win98 on some chipsets, including the Intel P35 which I'm using.

Otherwise, I don't really see how a Core 2 CPU can be slower than a Pentium 4, assuming both are running at similar clocks.

Otherwise, I don't really see how a Core 2 CPU can be slower than a Pentium 4, assuming both are running at similar clocks.

Core2 is much faster than NetBurst processors. Clock to clock there is no competition, but e.g. the E6600 @2.6GHz beats the Prescott @4GHz by a lot.

I previously installed Win98 on P45, but I probably won't install it in-house, because Win98SE runs well on Ryzen with the modernized drivers. The device manager is also complete, of course the GTX1650 only works with the modded Vesa driver, but there is an NV7900GS next to it, which is ok with the modded driver.
For even earlier performance, I have an S775 AGP system with NV6800GT and the aforementioned E6600.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-02-22, 09:40:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-22, 09:11:

I also have a device manager that has no exclamation marks but performance in some/most games is poor compared to a P4 system.

Is your system using a VIA chipset with an AGP graphics card by any chance? There's a known bug with certain VIA chipsets which halves AGP performance under Win98. Also, using more than 2GB RAM cripples Win98 on some chipsets, including the Intel P35 which I'm using.

Otherwise, I don't really see how a Core 2 CPU can be slower than a Pentium 4, assuming both are running at similar clocks.

VIA with a PCIe slot and a 7600GS.