Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

And the other thing is that most games run quite well on newer XP machines without all the headache.

...well there you go. But if you can't easily get an old game to run smoothly on an new rig [XP/7/8] building a box is usually the most straightforward solution, if you have the parts. Once you've done that, problem solved, and no worries that your next OS upgrade will require a completely new set of patches/tweaks/esoteric arts to get it running again.

For me the hot setup has been to leave dos games to DosBox, which works like a charm, and build boxes [currently 3] specifically for the finicky W95/98 era stuff - especially glide/rendition based 😀

I also like knowing for certain that this is what the game looked like, sounded like, and ran at back then. When I did a comparison video of the console versions of Tomb Raider with the DOS and Gold versions included I wasn't confident that I was representing the real thing like I was for the console versions. Now I can be even though the PIII 500 is way overkill for 90s games I think. 😉

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Anyway I'm kinda over this W98 thing. Too many issues and oddly enough there aren't that many games that I want to play anyway 😒

Zounds, sanity prevails! 🤣

🤣

Yea this hobby does test your sanity...

It just took over my time and because of all the issues I didn't shoot anything yet. I don't feel I'm in the position to tell others what to do when my system crashed and has all sort of other bugs...

Might do one on a Pentium based machine instead. These things just work 😀

Made a discovery today. The 3.5 Multi on Socket 7 boards is 1.5. So I now have my Pentiums running at 100MHz (as slow as it gets). Less is more in this case 😁

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Made a discovery today. The 3.5 Multi on Socket 7 boards is 1.5. So I now have my Pentiums running at 100MHz (as slow as it gets). Less is more in this case 😁

interesting - I recently 'upgraded' my AN430TX rig from P200 to P233, and discovered the 233 interprets the multis differently than the 200 [or lower]. Now I can't underclock @ 90 as I'd been able to do with the 200. I think 100 or 133 is the new bottom without switching back to the 200...

Okay, I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread to post this or not, but I'd like to know if anybody has has any success with UNDER clocking a Pentium III CPU on an Intel Warm Springs 440BX Motherboard. It would be helpful to me if I could access the multipliers or bus speed on this board but I don't see any options in the BIOS and there aren't any jumpers. I find this quite odd for such an old mother board. All of the machines I built back then had jumpers only or glitchy bios options.