I'd say that the graphics might be very similar. You can always try looking as passmark scores, if they exist for those cards. If it's 8 bucks I'd say spring for it.

Windows 98se tends to have memory problems with configurations over 512mb. There are fixes, but I think they too may be limited to around 1GB or so. The better idea is to use Windows ME, which doesn't have these memory restraints iirc.

For the latter portion, as strange as it sounds, you may be in the wrong section. The original purpose of VOGONS was a forum to find ways to play Very Old Games On New Systems. If you're looking for a way to get specific DOS games to run on a newer system, you might want to hit up the DOS/Windows sections at the top of the section listings. If you want help with DOSBox, there are sections for that too.

This box would do well as an emulation machine, with DOSBox and other gaming emulators, for the simple reason that DOS doesn't tend to play nice with newer systems, even virtualization.

Also, Welcome to VOGONS.

Ampera wrote:

I'd say that the graphics might be very similar. You can always try looking as passmark scores, if they exist for those cards. I […]
Show full quote

I'd say that the graphics might be very similar. You can always try looking as passmark scores, if they exist for those cards. If it's 8 bucks I'd say spring for it.

Windows 98se tends to have memory problems with configurations over 512mb. There are fixes, but I think they too may be limited to around 1GB or so. The better idea is to use Windows ME, which doesn't have these memory restraints iirc.

For the latter portion, as strange as it sounds, you may be in the wrong section. The original purpose of VOGONS was a forum to find ways to play Very Old Games On New Systems. If you're looking for a way to get specific DOS games to run on a newer system, you might want to hit up the DOS/Windows sections at the top of the section listings. If you want help with DOSBox, there are sections for that too.

This box would do well as an emulation machine, with DOSBox and other gaming emulators, for the simple reason that DOS doesn't tend to play nice with newer systems, even virtualization.

Also, Welcome to VOGONS.

thxx

Chrome 9 has DX9 capability, Radeon 7000 is DX7 no T&L
There is a Chrome 9 driver for 98 - and Chipset 4 in 1, though you'd have to use the later ones to support the newer chipset (still support 98, but not optimized for it).
http://download.viatech.com/en/support/driversSelect.jsp

For Win98, the large memory rule is that VCACHE + AGP aperture < 512MB

Using punctuation would make your posts easier to read.

jamespoo wrote:

i remember back in like 2005 or so when my sister gave me a windows xp laptop i remember download lots of dos games and being able to run them fine with out needing dosbox the pc i found is running xp sp3 and most if not all dos games give me errors trying to run them if i got the first release of xp would this fix the problems as i really want to try and avoid using dosbox if possible as my nephew will also be using this computer too and i want it to be simple for him to use

It is hard to say anything without knowing more about the specific errors you are seeing. There is one specific error about "AUTOEXEC.NT" that used to be very common in later versions of XP, but it is extremely easy to fix.

Also, DOSBox can easily be configured to launch programs from shortcuts and thus be "simple to use".

Matth79 wrote:

Chrome 9 has DX9 capability, Radeon 7000 is DX7 no T&L There is a Chrome 9 driver for 98 - and Chipset 4 in 1, though you'd have […]
Show full quote

Chrome 9 has DX9 capability, Radeon 7000 is DX7 no T&L
There is a Chrome 9 driver for 98 - and Chipset 4 in 1, though you'd have to use the later ones to support the newer chipset (still support 98, but not optimized for it).
http://download.viatech.com/en/support/driversSelect.jsp

For Win98, the large memory rule is that VCACHE + AGP aperture < 512MB

so Chrome 9 would be better at running games like halo or half life then a 7000 card?

Halo requires hardware T&L, so the 7000 or VE (using the cut down RV100) wouldn't do it - R100 based models, the rest of the 7000 series, would be able to.

No idea what sort of performance Chrome 9 (their first integrated based on the DX9 cores) would deliver - not great, found one test on youtube, 5 FPS on Half Life. Radeon 7000 wouldn't be up to much either

Your link leads to a AM2 sempron running on a VIA KT890 mainboard. That chipset has working win98 drivers, so you can easily run win98 on it. Thing is, as far as I know, 99.9% of AM2 mainboards come with PCI-E witch is not very Win98 friendly, but still doable (GF 6600, 6800, Radeon X800/X850 PCI-E will run fine on win98 as long as they have 128 or 256MB of video memory and not more). The CPU-Z screen reports the graphics card running on AGP8x, but the mainboard is reported as a MSI MS-7253, witch has a PCI-E slot. It's possible you're running on on-board graphics witch is liked to the AGP bus... If that is the case, aforementioned cards will work fine under win98, but the radeon 7000 you want will not, unless it's PCI. In any case, the radeon 7000 (or radeon VE) is quite simply... carp. Stay away from it. Find a cheap 6600/6800 / x700/x800 PCI-E card and go with that. Even a lowly 6200 / x300 is preferable over the radeon VE. Here are some benchmarks to show just how slow it is: Re: 99-03 video card performance scaling (Q3, Unreal, DK2, 3DM2k, 3DM2001) - it's slower then a Rage 128 and a TNT2!

Also, in win98se you can only run 1GB of ram so the 2GB stick needs to go.

As for dos games... some will run fine - late dos games like Duke 3D, Quake, C&C / Red Alert for DOS, and even DOOM will work on that machine, but earlier games like Commander Keen (graphical corruption on fast machines), Dune II (broken scenario triggers), Supaplex (screen "jumping" or dos4gw error) and so on will not.