I generally go for a mixture of the two. I want it to feel old, but play the best it can possibly be. My late-90s gaming rig has a 1.0GHz P3, 64MB GF2 MX400 and 12MB Voodoo2 SLI. Dual sound cards too, a Turtle Beach Santa Cruz and an AWE64. The case is a gorgeous early 2000's silver bubble light case, and the hard drive is the last 40GB drive Maxtor produced back in 2005. My new DOS rig is going to have an AMD K6 with bus/multiplier switches mounted on the front of the case, as well as an S3 Savage4 AGP card.

Objectively fast can be pretty great sometimes though. I just built my friend a late 90's gaming rig with an FIC K7MNF-64 motherboard. This thing was friggin' awesome. Not a single add on card was needed - the GeForce4 and audio were on board. Combined with a Sempron 3000+ this thing was a monster. 60fps all day, every day. Just add Voodoo2 SLI and the machine is pretty much perfect. If that wasn't enough, the integrated audio is hardware accelerated and supports A3D. Getting it to work in Windows 98 was a massive pain in the ass though, I had to track down a hotfix that doesn't exist online anymore, so I'm rehosting it here in case anyone is interested. You'll also need to load DX9 prior to installing the chipset drivers.

https://www.mediafire.com/?39qxbplov86qyes

Scali wrote:

Yes, but you'd obviously pick the high-end to cutting-edge parts. This is gaming we're talking about. I could even buy an 8088 machine today, but that's hardly relevant, is it?

Relevancy to the topic at hand? Yes, it is. Regarding the topic, "Objectively fast" over "Properly dated"?, it is missing a 3rd option: "Widest scope?", which is taking the intrinsic benefit of the PC platform itself, i.e. making the most of backwards compatibility over the widest timeframe.

For example, if my requirements are to have as few builds as possible to run as many games as possible using real hardware from 8088-class to fastest possible, then I can build such a system. I can do this right now from an 8088 to Pentium II-class and everything in-between with one build.

Scali wrote:

Why are you trying to overcomplicate things? Hardware upgrades came in waves, and so did the games and their system requirements.
I mean, new CPUs would only get introduced once every 3-5 years.
Also, for some games it's more relevant than for others. Some games aren't very speed-sensitive and/or work exactly the same on a wide variety of hardware.

I get that you are simplyfying 'Period Correct' builds by choosing an era and speccing parts for that era based around game system requirements. I'm not trying to overcomplicate things - in fact, with hindsight, I can simplify builds to the fewest possible over the widest timeline. So rather than applying restrictions to builds (Period Correct), this is celebrating the flexibility of the PC.

Scali wrote:

If we're talking about my proposal of a kind of 'virtual museum' that displays all games as the developers meant them to be played, then the answer is: as many as it takes. Which is probably not that many. I guess 4 to 5 machines would cover the DOS era at least (the one I'm interested in). With another 4-5 you could probably cover the Windows era as well, since Windows is not that sensitive about speed or exact hardware features. Eg, pick the best videocard for every era, and build a machine around it. A VooDoo machine, a TNT2 machine, a GeForce3 machine, a Radeon 9700 machine, a GeForce 8800 machine and by then you've pretty much arrived at 'modern' machines.

I see how you are differentiating the Windows builds with video cards, but what about the DOS builds? CGA, EGA, and a couple of VGA builds?

Scali wrote:

j^aws wrote:

But if your build covers those two reasons, then build whatever works.

I already explained the reasons, so I don't see why you're still debating this.

I don't see your point: "The point is just that you don't go overboard."

What is overboard? Going past the restriction imposed by being 'Period Correct' and/ or past the recommended guideline suggested by the developer'? I understand your point for your 'museum', and in that context I get it. I also get it for playing safe for compatiblity. I've gone beyond developer guidelines and found games to run better on many occasions, so I'll proceed to ignore said developer guideline as limited to their timeframe. If the game works though, so what if I go overboard?

Scali wrote:

It could be virtual. I bet between all the users of Vogons, we've more than got every interesting configuration of real hardware […]
Show full quote

It could be virtual. I bet between all the users of Vogons, we've more than got every interesting configuration of real hardware for all games ever made covered. People could just make YouTube videos of the games playing on real hardware.
Ever seen the YouTube channel of TheShadowsNose? He records the same game running on various platforms, using real hardware. His videos give very good insight in how the games really play, look and sound on real hardware. For example his video on Titus the Fox: https://youtu.be/hqgsUemLi84
His recording really shows off just how smooth the Amiga's scrolling is, and how the Atari ST isn't. Emulators on PC generally don't get the scrolling perfectly smooth, so if you play it in an Amiga emulator, you may get an experience closer to the Atari ST, without knowing just how good the game really is.
Also, he records from a real CRT, so you see the graphics as they were designed, rather than the blocky 'perfect' output from most emulators, that don't quite do the original graphics justice.

That's the sort of stuff I'd want for PCs as well.

I agree emulators are not perfect, and a 'virtual museum' of sorts via YT is another way to get insight. Neither can replace real hardware, especially with tactile feedback missing regarding specialised control systems (e.g. Arcade) - you won't get that from YT, but you can get a sense from emulators using similar control systems.

I can detect uneven scrolling/ panning easily, and that YT example of scolling reminds me of early home computers using flip-screen scrolling. Other things I can detect are laggy inputs, missing low res scanlines etc... I'm sure VOGONS users could contribute via YT (some already have) and highlight their insights, too. I'm struggling with time to build and test, nevermind play and post.

I tend to pair my cpus with a video card that's a couple years newer like a geforce 6800 with a p3 1.4s, i did throw a hd 3850 with my p3-s didn't make a difference tho, the 6800 is the best match.

I did however build a pc strictly out of parts from 1999, but it seems kinda boring and back in the day processors where coming out fast like new cpu every week. Everyone was upgrading there parts every year.

I started my first custom gaming machine in 2011 when i got a good job and i just did my last upgrade last week RX470, Ive been contently swapping cpus, ram, hdd, motherboard and video card and now i cant go any further with my socket AM3+.

j^aws wrote:

Relevancy to the topic at hand? Yes, it is.

The topic at hand is "period correct" (or "properly dated" as it was phrased in the title).
So you would say that if I buy an 8088 system today, it is "period correct" for the day I bought it?
Because that's what you're claiming.

j^aws wrote:

Regarding the topic, "Objectively fast" over "Properly dated"?, it is missing a 3rd option: "Widest scope?", which is taking the intrinsic benefit of the PC platform itself, i.e. making the most of backwards compatibility over the widest timeframe.

For your goals perhaps. However, for the goal I described, the scope is not relevant.

j^aws wrote:

So rather than applying restrictions to builds (Period Correct), this is celebrating the flexibility of the PC.

Which is an entirely different goal than the one I described. So I don't see why we should argue over this.
You do your thing, I do mine.

I prefer sentimental!

I'll play as many games as possible on my 486/66 which was our first PC ever.
I'll play most my other games on my Duel P3 600, be it in DOS, 9x, 2k. This is based off a system I salvaged from work many years ago.

I rarely use my P3 1Ghz and my faster 486 is in a few parts at the moment. Both being more suited for gaming in reality.
I do like to max out the motherboard though, so the 486 has 64MB of RAM and 6GB HDD's although these upgrades were done during its life as the family computer, I cant quite bring myself to upgrade the CPU as that's the heart of the system now.

All my other PC's I completely ignore dates and get whatever get the best out of that system.

Scali wrote:

The topic at hand is "period correct" (or "properly dated" as it was phrased in the title). So you would say that if I buy an 80 […]
Show full quote

j^aws wrote:

Relevancy to the topic at hand? Yes, it is.

The topic at hand is "period correct" (or "properly dated" as it was phrased in the title).
So you would say that if I buy an 8088 system today, it is "period correct" for the day I bought it?
Because that's what you're claiming.

Nope, remove the "day that you bought it". In your example, it would be:

If you wanted an 8088 system (at any given date) and you built one, you can also take into consideration any parts released before the 8088 launched for your build (in this case there isn't an era before the 8088, so you only have to consider 8088 parts).

Or, If you wanted an 286 system (at any given date) and you built one, you can also take into consideration any parts released before the 286 for your build.

Or, If you wanted an 386 system (at any given date) and you built one, you can also take into consideration any parts released before the 386 for your build.

Or, If you wanted an 486 system (at any given date) and you built one, you can also take into consideration any parts released before the 486 for your build.

And so on... For any given build, what parts you can consider are parts from 8088 to the era of choice that you want to build. So, a Period Correct build can have a 486 and give little to no consideration to parts prior to a 486 and do the same for a 386, 286 and 8088. On the other hand, I can build a 486, and take into considertaion all the parts available prior to a 486, and have *one* build. These two examples will have their pros and cons, the main one being the number of builds needed (4 vs 1).

Scali wrote:

j^aws wrote:

So rather than applying restrictions to builds (Period Correct), this is celebrating the flexibility of the PC.

Which is an entirely different goal than the one I described. So I don't see why we should argue over this.
You do your thing, I do mine.

Precisely that. If there is argiung, then it's over labelling builds and what can or can't be in a build for said label. They are all PCs.

j^aws wrote:

And so on... For any given build, what parts you can consider are parts from 8088 to the era of choice that you want to build.

I'm sorry I don't agree on your over-romanticised view of how expandable and compatible the PC is.
The 'eras' are really far more limited in time.
For example, PC and XT had one keyboard interface. The AT introduced another.
So you can't use a PC/XT keyboard on an AT or better.
Then you got PS/2 keyboards, and today it's mostly USB.
Plenty of other examples (eg, ISA, VLB, PCI and AGP slots have disappeared over time, meaning that all old cards are not compatible with new systems. XTs had their own proprietary PSUs, then AT standardized it, and ATX introduced a new and incompatible standard later. If you look hard enough, you may even be able to find systems with the BTX standard, which never caught on).

And then there are things that may not work properly. For example, for 8088 machines, you could buy these multifunction cards, which added memory expansion, battery-backed clock and a serial port. They probably wouldn't work on newer machines, and even if they did, they'd be useless, because newer machines had much faster memory interfaces on the motherboard, and battery-backed clocks became standard on the AT.

Another example is soundcards. You can find various topics here on early Sound Blaster cards, and how a lot of software doesn't work properly on fast systems. Newer clone cards don't have that issue.

Such hardware very much belongs to a certain 'era', with a well-defined beginning and end. There's a limited window of time in which this hardware was available and useful. Outside that window it doesn't work.

The "proprietary" thing back then was something bad for the final customer that need a replace part but one thing I like back then is the number of alternatives with hundreds of pc builders with many different combination of parts even if/when proprietary. You'd never know if you'd find another pc like yours around.
Nowdays it seem that the whole integration-apu-smartphone-like-services concept is step by step making the pc platform a bit boring and plug&pay.

Scali wrote:

j^aws wrote:

And so on... For any given build, what parts you can consider are parts from 8088 to the era of choice that you want to build.

{...}
Such hardware very much belongs to a certain 'era', with a well-defined beginning and end. There's a limited window of time in which this hardware was available and useful. Outside that window it doesn't work.

Are you aware of every part released since the original IBM PC? And I mean every part ever released?

I bet the answer is no. We define this 'window' and build to our requirements. If my game works in my build, then so what?

Why can I get a 440BX board for example, and have 8bit ISA slots, 16bit ISA slots, 32 bit PCI slots, and an AGP slot all on *one* board? These slots are spanning from the XT era to the AGP era. Just because the board makers felt like it?

Throughout these defined eras, there have always been transitional products, at appropriate prices, for people not wanting to upgrade immediately and migrate smoothly, and at the right price.

Why do I have a board with 2 32bit VESA slots, 8 shared 32bit EISA slots, 8 shared 16bit ISA slots, 8 shared 8bit ISA slots and all on the *same* board? Just because ACER felt like making it?

Why do I have Socket 7 boards that can De-Turbo down to XT speeds? For jokes and giggles?

You will find boards like the above, and countless adapters and devices to continuously migrate users forwards, and move the PC platform forwards. This and backwards compatibility are some of the reasons why the PC exists today as a platform. You don't have to share my views, but I've lived through all of this after starting gaming in the late 70s. And thoughout the 80s, so many competitors wanted to be IBM compatible with their own range of products so that users didn't lose their software investments. Backwards compatibilty (however flawed) was a significant driving force.

So you can can build as many as you want, and I'll build as few as I want. You define your window, and I'll define my window. This is exactly what THE PC is.

j^aws wrote:

Why can I get a 440BX board for example, and have 8bit ISA slots, 16bit ISA slots, 32 bit PCI slots, and an AGP slot all on *one* board? These slots are spanning from the XT era to the AGP era. Just because the board makers felt like it?

I don't think you understood my point, which is something like: Just because you have the slots doesn't mean all hardware for that slot will actually work.

Scali wrote:

j^aws wrote:

Why can I get a 440BX board for example, and have 8bit ISA slots, 16bit ISA slots, 32 bit PCI slots, and an AGP slot all on *one* board? These slots are spanning from the XT era to the AGP era. Just because the board makers felt like it?

I don't think you understood my point, which is something like: Just because you have the slots doesn't mean all hardware for that slot will actually work.

And I've never disagreed with this.

Well, whatever... try running 8088 MPH on your 'deturbo'ed to XT' socket 7 system. You'll see what I mean.

Scali wrote:

Well, whatever... try running 8088 MPH on your 'deturbo'ed to XT' socket 7 system. You'll see what I mean.

I'm prepared for any compromises with the gains I get from my builds because I've already accepted that there is no perfect build.

BTW, I've already tried and it works with glitches. But the purpose of the build was to run games, not your demo (however good it is)... I haven't finished testing though; I have a bunch of CGA compatible cards, and my next step is to see if I can hack a Composite Out and see how close it gets. I do have a dedicated demoscene build planned though.

I'd like my machines to be "properly dated" but to be honest... periodically correct hardware sometimes leaves your games stuttering horribly or not working alltogether. Or they lag just enough to make you cringe. That's why I'm currently using 486 DX-33 to play games from 8088 to 386 and early 486 era. And my P200MMX+Voodoo2 covers games from High-End 486 to early Pentium Voodoo stuff. I just like to go over the top because why not? I'd rather have too much power under the hood than too little. 🤣

Ariakos wrote:

I'd like my machines to be "properly dated" but to be honest... periodically correct hardware sometimes leaves your games stuttering horribly or not working alltogether. Or they lag just enough to make you cringe. That's why I'm currently using 486 DX-33 to play games from 8088 to 386 and early 486 era. And my P200MMX+Voodoo2 covers games from High-End 486 to early Pentium Voodoo stuff. I just like to go over the top because why not? I'd rather have too much power under the hood than too little. 🤣

Yep this is where I'm at too - pretty close to period correct but not to the point that I'm suffering through slowdowns. I suffered through low frame rates for most of the 90s and 00s, why would I subject myself to that again?

I have a lot of nostalgia for my original 486SX 33 for example, but if I had that exact machine in front of me today - with its awful Trident VGA, PC speaker, and blurry 14" CRT - I'd start upgrading it post haste, just like I did back in the day.

Period correct is a nice idea, but killer dream machine for your inner child is where the fun begins 😈

j^aws wrote:

BTW, I've already tried and it works with glitches. But the purpose of the build was to run games, not your demo (however good it is)...

Software is software. Your PC doesn't know it's running a demo. It could be a game. I'm pretty sure I can find some games that are too speed-sensitive to work correctly on your system as well. Point is: compatibility and extensibility are not what you make them out to be.
You can't just take an arbitrary system and clock it down to get the performance of another system. It doesn't work that way. Each CPU has its own unique performance characteristics. Sometimes, these characteristics matter. In cases where they don't, you might as well use DOSBox.

^^ Do you know what I mean by compromise and gain? Don't you think I know my pros and cons of my builds? There isn't a perfect build. Conversely, why don't you try running Duke Nukem 3D on your XT and see how you get on? That's right, your build can't do that. You'll need another build. Pros and cons to every build.

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

Scali wrote:

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

Hey, if you are implying that I'm changing some rules with that comment, then you better reread all my posts again. So if there isn't anything else to argue, I'll leave with your recent comment:

Scali wrote:

Which is an entirely different goal than the one I described. So I don't see why we should argue over this.
You do your thing, I do mine.

We have different goals.

"Conversely, why don't you try running Duke Nukem 3D on your XT and see how you get on? That's right, your build can't do that." <-- moving goalposts right there. I clearly stated that I want different machines for different eras etc. So running Duke Nukem 3D on an XT... no idea where that goal came from. Someone must have been moving the goalposts.
That's not the only occurence of it, by the way.