TBH you can build a nice late Socket 7 or a Pentium II rig and put two hard drives in it (or one larger one and partition it). One will have DOS 6.22 + WfW 3.11, the other will have 9x. Multibooting handled by a boot utility like System Commander 7. That way you can do more with one rig, less building to do.

Nodoyuna wrote:

Hi
Another idea I'm having is build an XP machine, but I don't really know if that's really necessary, as maybe WinXP games will run fin on modern computers with Windows 7.

Thanks in advance

i know fallout 3 wont work on anything over vista without having to tinker with the games files
not sure about any other games

If you want to use EAX effects without having to use Alchemy, you will want an XP machine. Same goes for hardware 3D sound.

MS killed the support for both of those starting with Vista.

TBH you can build a nice late Socket 7 or a Pentium II rig and put two hard drives in it (or one larger one and partition it). One will have DOS 6.22 + WfW 3.11, the other will have 9x. Multibooting handled by a boot utility like System Commander 7. That way you can do more with one rig, less building to do

This is one interesting idea. I'm following Philscomputerlabs build for DOS right now
What should be a nice setup to cover DOS and early and late Win9X games?
I could even make a tri-boot, with MS-DOS, Win95 and Win98 (even WinME)... Or this is not really needed?

i know fallout 3 wont work on anything over vista without having to tinker with the games files
not sure about any other games

For this Windows post WinME, I already had the idea of making a multi-boot with XP, Vista and Win7
Again, what should be a nice setup to cover these systems?

If you want to use EAX effects without having to use Alchemy, you will want an XP machine. Same goes for hardware 3D sound.

MS killed the support for both of those starting with Vista

Is there a good quality soundcard I could use on XP and Vista (and even Win7) I will be playing on a 2.0 setup anyway, so maybe 3D sound is not needed for me

Nodoyuna wrote:

Hi

I'm building a PC for MS-DOS retro gaming. I was thinking in making it a mixed DOS/Win98 build, but as some later Win98 games
won´t run well on the PC I'm building, I'd rather going to make this one only pure MS-DOS, and build later another one for Windows 9X

Your idea sounds fine to me. 😀 The last true, period-correct Win98SE machine we had was a Pentium III 733MHz.
Later, I got a Pentium IV (Prescoot ?) which theoretically was Win98-capable but came with XP already.

Nodoyuna wrote:

So, as far as I know, Windows 95 and Windows 98 are compatible, so any software from Win95 will run fine on Win98, so that will be another build

Yes, they are. Win98 is pretty much a super set of Win95 (with a few drastic differences). Windows 98SE goes a bit further and supports WDM drivers
(also used by Win2K/XP) and emulates a few NT kernal functions in orcder to do so (98FE had some form of WDM compatibilty,
but was *very* limited, I beleieve).
By the way, Windows Me was compatible with all three driver types (*.DRV,*.i386/*.VXD,*.SYS), as well.
There's also KernalEx, which adds Win XP API compatibility on a large scale. http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/

oeuvre wrote:

TBH you can build a nice late Socket 7 or a Pentium II rig and put two hard drives in it (or one larger one and partition it). One will have DOS 6.22 + WfW 3.11, the other will have 9x. Multibooting handled by a boot utility like System Commander 7. That way you can do more with one rig, less building to do.

Unless one has very specific (aesthetic?) needs to run Windows 3.11, this is a waste of a hard drive (or a partition). Windows 98 SE has a pure DOS mode, and you can cover all DOS and Windows games with a single OS. Whatever limitations you may experience would come from the hardware, not the operating system.

Nodoyuna wrote:

I could even make a tri-boot, with MS-DOS, Win95 and Win98 (even WinME)... Or this is not really needed?

Not needed. Even a dual boot is not needed, as I explained above. If you want to do this just to have some experience with each OS, that's one thing, but it serves no practical purpose, as it will not increase your software or hardware compatibility level.

IMO it's like this:

DOS6.22 + Win3.11 - for very old systems (Pentium 1 or lower)
Win95/98 - not needed ever
Win98SE - for old systems where you want pure DOS compatibility as well as early Windows games, that are powerful enough to take advantages (K6/P2/P3)
WinME - for Win9x games where you absolutely don't care about pure DOS and want a slightly more modern OS kernel

Nodoyuna wrote:

I already had the idea of making a multi-boot with XP, Vista and Win7

You probably don't need Vista here. I don't know if there is a single game or application that is both capable of taking advantage of anything Vista offers over XP, and at the same time will not run properly on Win7.

So, it will be something like this:

1) DOS 6.22 + Windows 3.11 - This would cover the complete DOS era, as Win3.11 is really a program that runs under DOS

2) Windows 98SE - This would cover Win95 + Win98 + WinME. DOS is not needed as there will be a pure DOS build. Anyway, some very early Windows games were really running in DOS mode. Maybe a dual boot with Win98SE and WinME

3) Windows XP - Mainly for 3D audio, as stated in previous posts

4) Windows 7 and above, for running modern games. Maybe a dual boot with Win7 and Win10?

I have clear the specs for the pure DOS build, but don't have any clue for the rest.

So, please make suggestions for builds 2,3 and 4

Thanks in advance

Nodoyuna wrote:

So, it will be something like this: […]
Show full quote

So, it will be something like this:

1) DOS 6.22 + Windows 3.11 - This would cover the complete DOS era, as Win3.11 is really a program that runs under DOS

2) Windows 98SE - This would cover Win95 + Win98 + WinME. DOS is not needed as there will be a pure DOS build. Anyway, some very early Windows games were really running in DOS mode. Maybe a dual boot with Win98SE and WinME

3) Windows XP - Mainly for 3D audio, as stated in previous posts

4) Windows 7 and above, for running modern games. Maybe a dual boot with Win7 and Win10?

I have clear the specs for the pure DOS build, but don't have any clue for the rest.

So, please make suggestions for builds 2,3 and 4

Thanks in advance

1.and 2.) Actually that depends on what do you mean by "complete DOS era"? Many early games, as far as I know, are allergic to faster CPUs and corresponding display cards, If you don't care about those early games (I don't care much for example), which are definately pre 1990, I think you don't even need a pure DOS machine. A multiboot MS-DOS 6.22+ Windows 3.x / Windows 98SE machine (if you want Windows 3.x) or even a pure Windows 98SE rig (if you don't really need Windows 3.x) will do all the late DOS games (starting from early 90s) as well as Windows games. A fast PII/PIII kind of rig can handle upto games 2000-2001 (look at the rig in my sig). Windows ME / Windows 98SE multiboot has no practical purpose or advantages. Of course you can do it just for the sake of it (I did 🤣) but If you want real DOS mode, install SE, if you don't need DOS mod You can install any of the two. By the way, there are patches around to fix the crippled boot code of Windows ME and make it capable of booting to DOS mode. They work perfectly.

3.) Very very long era, very wide options. I suggest to go for the latest hardware that still has XP support (I'm not well versed in this, but I presume easy to find out from the net) that your budget can cover.

My PIII rig had XP on it once, and my current XP rig is a socket 939 Opteron (for nostalgic reasons). My daily rig (core2quad) had XP on it till 2014. There were brand new top rated hardware still supporting XP even in 2016.

4.) Sky is the limit I guess. Except very late Intel CPUs (and correcponding MBs maybe), there are not much modern hardware around, that can't run Windows 7 I guess.

dr_st wrote:

WinME - for Win9x games where you absolutely don't care about pure DOS and want a slightly more modern OS kernel

I think WinME is in a bit of 'limbo'... Since Win98SE was so popular, there's nothing from that era that specifically requires WinME.
If you want the 'fancy' OS kernel stuff, you'd be better off with Win2k or WinXP, and if you want the best Win9x support, then Win98SE is the best option.
I think the only exception to Win98SE is low-end machines, where Win95b might be a better option. I'm thinking of 486 machines with 16 MB or less, and a relatively small HDD. Win95b is the best combination of 'lightweight' and 'stability' for those machines.

Actually that depends on what do you mean by "complete DOS era"? Many early games, as far as I know, are allergic to faster CPUs and corresponding display cards, If you don't care about those early games (I don't care much for example), which are definately pre 1990, I think you don't even need a pure DOS machine. A multiboot MS-DOS 6.22+ Windows 3.x / Windows 98SE machine (if you want Windows 3.x) or even a pure Windows 98SE rig (if you don't really need Windows 3.x) will do all the late DOS games (starting from early 90s) as well as Windows games. A fast PII/PIII kind of rig can handle upto games 2000-2001 (look at the rig in my sig). Windows ME / Windows 98SE multiboot has no practical purpose or advantages. Of course you can do it just for the sake of it (I did 🤣) but If you want real DOS mode, install SE, if you don't need DOS mod You can install any of the two. By the way, there are patches around to fix the crippled boot code of Windows ME and make it capable of booting to DOS mode. They work perfectly.

By "complete DOS era", I mean that the DOS machine will be able to run any DOS game. I know about the speed and CPU issues that can make some games not compatible, but I'm following the Philscomputerlab videos to build the DOS machine and it can be slow down at 386,486 and Pentium modes/speed.

What I'd like to have are machines that will cover the complete era, from early to late games. With the DOS build I can not run late Win98 games so I prefer to have a machine dedicate completely to Win9X and be able to play early and late games

A question about this; will late Win98 games run well on XP?

Very very long era, very wide options. I suggest to go for the latest hardware that still has XP support (I'm not well versed in this, but I presume easy to find out from the net) that your budget can cover.

From XP onwards I'm completely lost, as that were the era when I left PC gaming and turnet a bit more into console gaming

Again, I've checked Phil videos, and he has various XP builds, so I don't really know which one is the best/more compatible one

I think WinME is in a bit of 'limbo'... Since Win98SE was so popular, there's nothing from that era that specifically requires WinME.
If you want the 'fancy' OS kernel stuff, you'd be better off with Win2k or WinXP, and if you want the best Win9x support, then Win98SE is the best option.
I think the only exception to Win98SE is low-end machines, where Win95b might be a better option. I'm thinking of 486 machines with 16 MB or less, and a relatively small HDD. Win95b is the best combination of 'lightweight' and 'stability' for those machines.

Things are a bit more clear now...

1) DOS 6.22 - can run DOS and Win3.11 games, with the option of also playing Win95 games and early Win98 games
2) Win9X - as the DOS machine won't run late Win98 games, a Win9X with Win98SE machine will run Win95 and Win98 games, leaving out WinME

This is correct?

I'll keep investigating about XP and later machines, knowing that any modern machine will run Win7 games without problems

Thanks

Nodoyuna wrote:

A question about this; will late Win98 games run well on XP?

There will always be exceptions, but yes, in general most later games will be compatible with Win98(SE), Win2k and WinXP.
The problems are mostly with early Win9x games, especially in the Win95 era.

Nodoyuna wrote:

1) DOS 6.22 - can run DOS and Win3.11 games, with the option of also playing Win95 games and early Win98 games

Not sure if I understand you here...
You mean a "DOS 6.22"-targeted machine on which will also install Windows 95 or Windows 98?
Because DOS 6.22 and Win 3.11 will not run any Win9x games.

Nodoyuna wrote:

2) Win9X - as the DOS machine won't run late Win98 games, a Win9X with Win98SE machine will run Win95 and Win98 games, leaving out WinME

'Win9x' means the branch of Windows that was based on the technology started by Windows 95. As such, WinME is also a 'Win9x' version.
The other popular branch is known as 'WinNT', which supplanted the Win9x branch for home users/gamers with Windows XP, although technically Windows 2000 could also be used as a gaming OS already (unlike NT4 before it, it had full DirectX support, on par with the Win9x branch).

As far as I know, there is no software that ONLY runs on WinME, but not on Win98SE.
There's either software that runs on Win9x (but not on NT-based versions), where Win98SE is the best option, and software that requires newer functionality than Win98SE, in which case a WinNT version, such as Windows 2000 or XP is the best choice.

It all has to do with the timeline...
First there was DOS as a gaming OS
Then came Windows 95.
Windows 98 and 98SE improved on Windows 95.
Then Windows XP supplanted 98SE as the home/gaming choice.

Because of this history, both WinME and Win2k are somewhat 'orphaned'... Win98SE is the 'pinnacle' of Win9x, and Windows XP is the 'pinnacle' of Windows NT (at least for DirectX 9 and earlier).
The other OSes don't add much. WinME is mostly a 'stripped' version of Win98SE, with the look and some of the functionality of Windows 2k ported to the Win9x branch.
And XP superceded Windows 2000 completely. Since Windows 2000 was aimed at professional users only, it was never a popular gaming choice. XP can run anything that 2k can, and is also more compatible with Win9x-oriented games.

Not sure if I understand you here...
You mean a "DOS 6.22"-targeted machine on which will also install Windows 95 or Windows 98?
Because DOS 6.22 and Win 3.11 will not run any Win9x games.

Yes, sorry, I mean a DOS machine, with will have also installed Win98SE (and knowing that Win95 games will run without problems on Win98)

dr_st wrote:

Unless one has very specific (aesthetic?) needs to run Windows 3.11, this is a waste of a hard drive (or a partition). Windows 9 […]
Show full quote

oeuvre wrote:

TBH you can build a nice late Socket 7 or a Pentium II rig and put two hard drives in it (or one larger one and partition it).
One will have DOS 6.22 + WfW 3.11, the other will have 9x. Multibooting handled by a boot utility like System Commander 7.
That way you can do more with one rig, less building to do.

Unless one has very specific (aesthetic?) needs to run Windows 3.11, this is a waste of a hard drive (or a partition).
Windows 98 SE has a pure DOS mode, and you can cover all DOS and Windows games with a single OS.
Whatever limitations you may experience would come from the hardware, not the operating system.

Windows 3.1 is handy for early Windows titles, I think. It can be run from within Win9x, akin to a WoW session in Windows NT. 😉
That way, neither a DOS 6.22 installation is needed, nor a special Config.sys/Autoexec.bat configuration. 3.1 is tiny (10MB), btw.
Exiting Win9x and running Win3.1 also works, of course. I recall there was a patch to make it more DOS 7.x compatible.

What are the specs for your pure dos PC? Depending how fast/slow it is will depend if you need a Dos/Win9x crossover PC.

Pentium 3 era makes a good Win9x gaming PC's, but you may want something with an ISA slot to fill the gap for later DOS games that the pure DOS pc isn't fast enough for.

WinXP was around for a long time. You can probably aim for a Socket 775 or 1366 based system and still have plenty of power left over or duel boot for an ok-ish Win7 system as well.

Audio, while far from perfect I like creative, and usually the final card supported by that OS.
Win98SE I like the Audigy 2 ZS, This also works in XP if you want to duel boot between the 2 OS's
WinXP I like the X-Fi Titanium if you have a PCIe, just don't get the Titanium HD which dropped WinXP support

What are the specs for your pure dos PC? Depending how fast/slow it is will depend if you need a Dos/Win9x crossover PC.

It's a K6 III+ 400Hz with a Voodoo3 2000 and Audician 32 Plus for audio, on a SS7 PCB... It should be able to run early and mid Win98 era games, but as later games can´t be played, I really prefer to have a separate Win9X machine

I think with this setup I'll be able to play most DOS games, as I can play with enable/disable caches and multipliers, in order to slowdown to 386,486 and Pentium speeds. For early DOS games for XT and AT machines, I'll try to slowdown even more with some slowdown utilities

That's a nice setup indeed for what you want it to do.

So your pure dos is already the dos/win9x crossover, and you even have glide covered. I wasn't going to get into that yet!

So really this will be D3D gaming rig. You could go as far as a socket 478 and GeForce 6800 with official Win98 drivers. This would be massively overkill and getting into Win9x/XP crossover build but also cheaper.
Really a socket 370 Pentium 3 will be fine for any games that don't like XP.

I'm still not familiar enough with the AMD/ATI side of things to give informed recommendations on that side of the camp though

So your pure dos is already the dos/win9x crossover, and you even have glide covered. I wasn't going to get into that yet!

Yes, with my setup I can play Win98, but my "problem" is how to run later Win98 games. That's the reason that I thought to have a more powerful machine for Win9X, but it seems it's not really needed?

Maybe those later Win98 games will run OK on a XP machine?

I like the idea of playing games in their native Operating System, that' the reason I was talking of my K6 III+ setup as DOS only (well, DOS+Win3.11) and wanted another machine for Win9X

Nodoyuna wrote:

Maybe those later Win98 games will run OK on a XP machine?

Yes, they will.

Nodoyuna wrote:

I like the idea of playing games in their native Operating System, that' the reason I was talking of my K6 III+ setup as DOS only (well, DOS+Win3.11)

K6-III is overkill for DOS only (+you may run into issues with Win3.11; can it even work with a Voodoo?). Why do you really want Win3.11?

With that said, there is certainly no harm in having a more powerful Win9x/ME machine, but neither is it mandatory. I don't think I ever encountered a game that was slowed down by my K6-2 rig, and could not work properly on WinXP (perhaps after a bit of patching).