VOGONS


Reply 40 of 57, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
candle_86 wrote on 2020-07-13, 13:48:
chinny22 wrote on 2020-07-13, 10:27:
Don't see the point of USB on any retro rigs at all, Don't even use it on my XP rigs Keyboard/Mouse either set legacy support in […]
Show full quote

Don't see the point of USB on any retro rigs at all, Don't even use it on my XP rigs
Keyboard/Mouse either set legacy support in bios or even better the PS2 ports and let a converter do all the work.
File Transfer, CD for the big things like OS and once that's up network is more convenient and reliable.
Maybe a game controller? by this point Win98 will probably be a viable option.
Is there something else I'm missing?

USB is a life saver for other reasons, I can move my joystick and gamepad around seamlessly without having to turn anything off

Booting from USB is possible on some more recent retro boards . This can be less of a hassle than using a floppy or burning a CD/DVD .

Reply 41 of 57, by Swiego

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Jo22 wrote on 2020-07-10, 12:35:
Windows 2000.. 🙄 It's mentioned because of its lack of activation, isn't it?! 😉 […]
Show full quote

Windows 2000.. 🙄 It's mentioned because of its lack of activation, isn't it?! 😉

Windows XP Pro is the right answer, of course. Silly question. 🙂

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aYQgYJdS1EE

Edit:

USB support

Sure.. Since when does W2k support USB 3.0 cards? Win XP does, with the manufacturer's drivers. In ca. 2010 even USB 3.0 PCI cards were made.

Edit: No offense guys, but we're living in the 2020s by now - not 2005!
USB 2.0 is nothing to be proud of anymore. It's a lame old duck. In fact, it has been since the late 2000s. If you can't get USB 3.0 to work, why not get Firewire 800 to work? Hm?
That was an alternative on the Power Mac platform on OS X Tiger, for example. 🙂

What a strange post. Even in 2020, USB 3.0 is kind of a mess!

Reply 42 of 57, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Swiego wrote on 2020-07-13, 15:09:
Jo22 wrote on 2020-07-10, 12:35:
Windows 2000.. 🙄 It's mentioned because of its lack of activation, isn't it?! 😉 […]
Show full quote

Windows 2000.. 🙄 It's mentioned because of its lack of activation, isn't it?! 😉

Windows XP Pro is the right answer, of course. Silly question. 🙂

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aYQgYJdS1EE

Edit:

USB support

Sure.. Since when does W2k support USB 3.0 cards? Win XP does, with the manufacturer's drivers. In ca. 2010 even USB 3.0 PCI cards were made.

Edit: No offense guys, but we're living in the 2020s by now - not 2005!
USB 2.0 is nothing to be proud of anymore. It's a lame old duck. In fact, it has been since the late 2000s. If you can't get USB 3.0 to work, why not get Firewire 800 to work? Hm?
That was an alternative on the Power Mac platform on OS X Tiger, for example. 🙂

What a strange post. Even in 2020, USB 3.0 is kind of a mess!

What came after USB 3.0 is an even bigger mess, IMHO .

Reply 43 of 57, by martinot

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Grzyb wrote on 2020-07-12, 20:59:

So, if you care about your machine being period-correct, then install NT4, and don't connect any USB stuff, instead use eg. external SCSI

Normal USB things like mouses and keyboard should possibly work fine under NT4. At least it worked on the Digital notebook that I bought in the 90'ies (which shipped with factory preinstalled NT4 WS). So I would not completely rule out trying to use the USB-port under NT. At least worth testing!

Otherwise I agree with pretty much everything in your post (well formulated).

Reply 44 of 57, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
martinot wrote on 2020-07-13, 21:18:
Grzyb wrote on 2020-07-12, 20:59:

So, if you care about your machine being period-correct, then install NT4, and don't connect any USB stuff, instead use eg. external SCSI

Normal USB things like mouses and keyboard should possibly work fine under NT4. At least it worked on the Digital notebook that I bought in the 90'ies (which shipped with factory preinstalled NT4 WS). So I would not completely rule out trying to use the USB-port under NT. At least worth testing!

Otherwise I agree with pretty much everything in your post (well formulated).

USB mice and keyboards are devices for which many machine BIOSes provide PS/2 emulation, which means the OS will see them as PS/2 devices if it does not see them natively through USB .

Support for some USB specific devices was implemented for NT4 on a one-off basis by select manufacturers of said devices (some USB NICs, for example, if my memory is correct).

There may even have been a third-party USB stack available, but my memory is foggy on that .

Reply 45 of 57, by martinot

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Forsa wrote on 2020-07-13, 01:14:
lolo799 wrote on 2020-07-10, 10:49:
The title should have been "what is the best Windows OS for a dual PPro"! […]
Show full quote

The title should have been "what is the best Windows OS for a dual PPro"!

Cause the answer concerning compatibility and driver support is this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20000815094229/ht … list_intel.html
But it all comes down to what you want to do with the computer anyway...

Or maybe OPENSTEP can be a good candidate too:
http://www.shawcomputing.net/resources/next/h … tibility_1.html

OPENSTEP does not support more than one processor (SMP). Its eventual successor Mac OS X does.

I would second in saying BeOS would be a fantastic choice for a dual Pentium Pro system. It's period-accurate and has excellent performance, it was written from the ground up with SMP in mind. Of course, it's not compatible with DOS and Windows software, so you might want to install DOS or Windows on a different partition and dual boot.

Did not know that NextStep did not support SMP (bought a copy of NeXTStep 3.1 for Intel X86 on eBay).

A little disappointed about that. I expected all UNIX systems to support SMP. 🙁

Would love to install and try out BeOS at some time. Could be a fun project!

Reply 46 of 57, by martinot

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-13, 02:17:
martinot wrote on 2020-07-12, 20:19:

I work a lot with music,both DJ and production, as well as photography, and even if Linux got some software, it does not generally have any support at all from the AAA-vendors.

Not all of them, no, but there is support from some AAA vendors and in some categories, proprietary software has been completely supplanted. If you want to stick with a specific application, though, you go where the ISV sends you.

I have one application that I use which supports Linux, and that is BitWig. That is very good of them, but every other type of software for DJ (Tractor), and music sequencer applications (Ableton and Cubase), mixing (Pro Tools), and instruments (Arturia V Collection, many Native Instruments software), effects plugins, that I use, are not supported under Linux. It is extremely rare.

Every application I use is supported under both Windows and equally as well in macOS.

If I used only macOS; no problem at all for all my music software and all my photo software (games not so much).

gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-13, 02:17:
martinot wrote on 2020-07-12, 20:19:

I have no problem with software for my Mac machines. macOS is generally equal to Windows regarding software in all types of creative areas, and even better in some cases (like Apples own Final Cut Pro and Logic).

Logic and FCP aren't the best of breed any more, though. Logic is competing with Cubase, Reaper, Studio One, and others. FCP lost a lot feature wise with the Great Redesign and competitors have definitely picked up the slack.

I do not use them (I personally prefer software that I can run under both macOS and Windows, as that makes me not tied and locked into only one platform).

My preference for DAW is Ableton (with some use of BitWig, Cubase and Pro Tools).

But my point; macOS gives you most freedom and choice of software in music, photo and video (ie. it is an option with Logic and FCP, but you have many more/all to select from).

gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-13, 02:17:
martinot wrote on 2020-07-12, 20:19:

For server things; sure. Great support for *BSD and other UNICES (including Solaris x86).

For general desktop apps, like Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, etc; not so much.

Well, Windows NT wasn't even the greatest desktop operating system circa 1995.

Now you avoid the subject (lack of commercial desktop app support for UNICES), and drift into a different topic (which system you define as the greatest in the years around 1995).

But OK, I change along as you wish...

I would not call any system "the greatest" (everyone I have tested has had its negatives in some way or another), but after using many different system for many years in the 90'ies, I personally found NT to be a quite good balanced solution for my own needs and my preferences, so in the middle/end of the 90'ies I settled on that.

I have no problem if it was not the #1 solution for everyone. No single solution will never be fully perfect for everyone. That is almost a fact of life.

The important thing (for me) was that I personally was happy and comfortable to be using it. It fitted my own usage and needs quite well. Ok? 😀

If you where/are happier running Linux (either in 1995, or today) - more power to you! No problem with that at all. Ok? 😀

Reply 47 of 57, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
martinot wrote on 2020-07-13, 21:54:

Now you avoid the subject (lack of commercial desktop app support for UNICES), and drift into a different topic (which system you define as the greatest in the years around 1995).

I wasn't trying to attack you personally or anything, and you're certainly valid in using whatever platform you wish. I just wanted to address a couple of things which were incorrect in your post.

There was a time when commercial support was virtually nonexistent, but that's no longer the case. Especially for higher end pro software, the efficiency penalty of Windows and MacOS has pushed consumers to look for superior platforms for their work. I'm not sure what's the story behind Reaper, but I do know that's why a huge amount of VFX production work using Maya, Nuke, Lightworks, etc. has moved onto Linux workstations driving Linux render farms. Professional film production is a cut throat business, and time is money.

Not every industry is this way -- CAD is notably not. However, professional audio and video work can definitely be done on Linux.

martinot wrote on 2020-07-13, 21:54:

I would not call any system "the greatest" (everyone I have tested has had its negatives in some way or another), but after using many different system for many years in the 90'ies, I personally found NT to be a quite good balanced solution for my own needs and my preferences, so in the middle/end of the 90'ies I settled on that.

I mean that specifically within the context of Windows software, prior to W2k and especially XP, NT was not the gold standard for hardware and software compatibility that Win9x was.

I agree with you that everything has it's benefits and drawbacks. It's why I think the OP needs to articulate what they want to do with the rig in question.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 48 of 57, by Caluser2000

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
blurks wrote on 2020-07-12, 11:19:

Don't you guys realize you are just feeding a troll? OP does never respond to your answers, just bringing up new questions (if even) without any relation to your statements and out of context. Most of the time he chickens out of the discussion immediately after starting a topic.

Exactly. Still hasn't. Modern Linux will run fine on that system...

For an ex '90s IT professional he knows bugger all about setting up '90s computers.

There's a glitch in the matrix.

Reply 49 of 57, by martinot

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-14, 03:47:

However, professional audio and video work can definitely be done on Linux.

Not with the industry prefer and industry standard application.

gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-14, 03:47:

I mean that specifically within the context of Windows software, prior to W2k and especially XP, NT was not the gold standard for hardware and software compatibility that Win9x was.

I agree with you that everything has it's benefits and drawbacks.

I mean exactly that as well. Different needs and different choices for different people. No problem with that. If you prefer W95 (or Linux, or XYZ) - go for that!

I only talk from my own preferences/needs, and my own choices.

I think that I have been *very* specific that it is my choices that applies to me.

I never try to speak for anyone else (other than referring to how general market and business seems to be oriented - right or wrong).

gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-14, 03:47:

I agree with you that everything has it's benefits and drawbacks. It's why I think the OP needs to articulate what they want to do with the rig in question.

Even if I am not speaking for anyone else, I think most of us probably can agree that W9x is a poor choice of Windows for a multi processor machine (*1)?

Ref 1: Which seems to be the whole point of running it, according to OP 's only single post (before he left the thread).

Reply 50 of 57, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
martinot wrote on 2020-07-14, 10:46:

Not with the industry prefer and industry standard application.

I just don't like unreserved categorical statements when there's nuance and detail.

If your shop runs strictly Pro Tools, for instance, you're probably using Windows. If your shop runs Reaper, you have options.

I do agree that the majority of pro DAWs support Windows while Linux DAW support is a small minority and more likely available in an appliance form. On the video side, full pipelines are commonly implemented on Linux. Tools in the prosumer space (Vegas, for instance) are generally the ones which lack support as there's much less competitive pressure driving efficiency.

martinot wrote on 2020-07-14, 10:46:
I mean exactly that as well. Different needs and different choices for different people. No problem with that. If you prefer W95 […]
Show full quote

I mean exactly that as well. Different needs and different choices for different people. No problem with that. If you prefer W95 (or Linux, or XYZ) - go for that!

I only talk from my own preferences/needs, and my own choices.

I think that I have been *very* specific that it is my choices that applies to me.

I never try to speak for anyone else (other than referring to how general market and business seems to be oriented - right or wrong).

Choice is good!

martinot wrote on 2020-07-14, 10:46:

Even if I am not speaking for anyone else, I think most of us probably can agree that W9x is a poor choice of Windows for a multi processor machine (*1)?

Ref 1: Which seems to be the whole point of running it, according to OP 's only single post (before he left the thread).

Indeed, therefore if he's wanting to run games, it's probably a bad choice of platform.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 51 of 57, by martinot

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-14, 14:11:
martinot wrote on 2020-07-14, 10:46:

Even if I am not speaking for anyone else, I think most of us probably can agree that W9x is a poor choice of Windows for a multi processor machine (*1)?

Ref 1: Which seems to be the whole point of running it, according to OP 's only single post (before he left the thread).

Indeed, therefore if he's wanting to run games, it's probably a bad choice of platform.

I just don't like such unreserved and categorical statements that you always make, when there's nuance and detail.

Facts: Some games runs fine on NT4, and in case of SMP, some made to take advantage of several cores even run better than under W95/single core.

Reply 52 of 57, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
martinot wrote on 2020-07-16, 13:15:

I just don't like such unreserved and categorical statements that you always make, when there's nuance and detail.

Facts: Some games runs fine on NT4, and in case of SMP, some made to take advantage of several cores even run better than under W95/single core.

Nah, my post was qualified, so I'm cool with it.

OpenGL works, DirectX beyond what came built in doesn't. If by some SMP games, I presume you mean Quake3 engine titles. Not all of them had an SMP binary, and SMP scaling wasn't great. This was still the case during the days of Win2k.

Microsoft intended NT4 for workstation applications. That means they concentrated on OpenGL and professional graphics, not gaming. Games that worked on NT4 were, by design choice, an exception.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 53 of 57, by Forsa

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Did not know that NextStep did not support SMP (bought a copy of NeXTStep 3.1 for Intel X86 on eBay).

A little disappointed about that. I expected all UNIX systems to support SMP. 🙁

Would love to install and try out BeOS at some time. Could be a fun project!

Yes, NeXT only sold uniprocessor workstation hardware and after the x86 port was eventually completed, along with SPARC and PA-RISC ports, the OS still only supported one CPU. Multiprocessor support was rare and confined to servers and supercomputers in the late 1980s when NEXTSTEP was launched, even Linux didn't do it back then. You can install NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP on a multiprocessor system, but it will only use one CPU and ignore the rest. SMP support was added after NeXT merged with Apple, so it only debuted publicly with the PowerPC Mac versions of the operating system, where it was rebranded to OS X at this point in time and received a UI change to match classic MacOS more closely. Still, NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP were initially designed and optimised for 25-33 MHz Motorola processors, so they run very snappily on any P-II/P-III class processor and positively fly on a P4 with its crazy-high clock speeds. NEXTSTEP is very picky for hardware compatibility and has very few drivers though, so a 440BX motherboard is recommended to enable busmastering DMA support which makes a huge difference to overall system responsiveness. Alternatively, you can install on a SCSI disk which works well if you're intending on using a newer motherboard, such as one with a P4 CPU. The Adaptec 2940 series of SCSI cards are well-supported. Anything newer than P4 with the Intel 845 chipset is likely to have compatibility problems because it would be too new. Any motherboard with SATA is right out.

One more thing: NEXTSTEP 3.x for Intel is even pickier and more limited than OPENSTEP 4.2 when it comes to hardware/driver support on the PC, so I highly recommend using OS4.2, instead. It is backward compatible with NEXTSTEP apps.

Reply 54 of 57, by martinot

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-16, 13:52:
martinot wrote on 2020-07-16, 13:15:

I just don't like such unreserved and categorical statements that you always make, when there's nuance and detail.

Facts: Some games runs fine on NT4, and in case of SMP, some made to take advantage of several cores even run better than under W95/single core.

Nah, my post was qualified, so I'm cool with it.

"The pot calling the kettle black"

Reply 55 of 57, by martinot

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-14, 14:11:

If your shop runs strictly Pro Tools, for instance, you're probably using Windows. If your shop runs Reaper, you have options.

You try to sound like it is just Pro Tools that is lacking native support for Linux.

Bitwig (which I already have, and which I also brought up) is an exception to the rule (not Pro Tools). Reaper is half supporting Linux, and not really an AAA title (very few professional or studios using it, even some exception is possible). So lets say (if we count nicely) that it's 1,5 of the major AA apps for Linux.

For Windows and/or Mac we have for example:

Ableton Live from Ableton
Audition from Adobe
Cubase and Nuendo from Steinberg
Digital Performer from MOTU
FL Studio from Image Line Software
Logic Pro and Logic Express from Apple
Mixcraft from Acoustica
Pro Tools from Avid
Samplitude
Sequoia
Music Maker
Music Studio from Magix
Cakewalk Sonar
Cakewalk Music Creator
Studio One from PreSonus

Reply 56 of 57, by martinot

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Forsa wrote on 2020-07-16, 20:32:

Did not know that NextStep did not support SMP (bought a copy of NeXTStep 3.1 for Intel X86 on eBay).

A little disappointed about that. I expected all UNIX systems to support SMP. 🙁

Would love to install and try out BeOS at some time. Could be a fun project!

Yes, NeXT only sold uniprocessor workstation hardware and after the x86 port was eventually completed, along with SPARC and PA-RISC ports, the OS still only supported one CPU. Multiprocessor support was rare and confined to servers and supercomputers in the late 1980s when NEXTSTEP was launched, even Linux didn't do it back then. You can install NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP on a multiprocessor system, but it will only use one CPU and ignore the rest. SMP support was added after NeXT merged with Apple, so it only debuted publicly with the PowerPC Mac versions of the operating system, where it was rebranded to OS X at this point in time and received a UI change to match classic MacOS more closely. Still, NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP were initially designed and optimised for 25-33 MHz Motorola processors, so they run very snappily on any P-II/P-III class processor and positively fly on a P4 with its crazy-high clock speeds. NEXTSTEP is very picky for hardware compatibility and has very few drivers though, so a 440BX motherboard is recommended to enable busmastering DMA support which makes a huge difference to overall system responsiveness. Alternatively, you can install on a SCSI disk which works well if you're intending on using a newer motherboard, such as one with a P4 CPU. The Adaptec 2940 series of SCSI cards are well-supported. Anything newer than P4 with the Intel 845 chipset is likely to have compatibility problems because it would be too new. Any motherboard with SATA is right out.

One more thing: NEXTSTEP 3.x for Intel is even pickier and more limited than OPENSTEP 4.2 when it comes to hardware/driver support on the PC, so I highly recommend using OS4.2, instead. It is backward compatible with NEXTSTEP apps.

Thanks for the tips and info. 😀

Will try to get my hands on that. Have bought a Next ADB-keyboard and Next ADB-mouse, that besides working with my old retro computers (Apple IIGS or Mac), will work on a x86 machine with the help of a ADB-PS/2-adapter I recently got. Have been close to buying a pizzabox Nextstation (NeXTstation Turbo), but decided instead to go with a PC with NextStep x86 (or as you suggest, OpenStep x86) with the Next keyboard and Next mouse attached to it. Takes up so much space with all old hardware one collects, and I do not like that the Next machines have complicated monitors and sound interfaces (the machine I almost bought came with original Next CRT, but I hate CRTs as they take up way too much space, and generally being quite unreliable).

Will look out for a box of OS 4.2!

Last edited by Stiletto on 2020-08-08, 02:50. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 57 of 57, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
martinot wrote on 2020-07-20, 19:03:
You try to sound like it is just Pro Tools that is lacking native support for Linux. […]
Show full quote
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-14, 14:11:

If your shop runs strictly Pro Tools, for instance, you're probably using Windows. If your shop runs Reaper, you have options.

You try to sound like it is just Pro Tools that is lacking native support for Linux.

Bitwig (which I already have, and which I also brought up) is an exception to the rule (not Pro Tools). Reaper is half supporting Linux, and not really an AAA title (very few professional or studios using it, even some exception is possible). So lets say (if we count nicely) that it's 1,5 of the major AA apps for Linux.

For Windows and/or Mac we have for example:

Ableton Live from Ableton
Audition from Adobe
Cubase and Nuendo from Steinberg
Digital Performer from MOTU
FL Studio from Image Line Software
Logic Pro and Logic Express from Apple
Mixcraft from Acoustica
Pro Tools from Avid
Samplitude
Sequoia
Music Maker
Music Studio from Magix
Cakewalk Sonar
Cakewalk Music Creator
Studio One from PreSonus

I agree, Windows and Mac are more popular for audio production. I never disputed this.

Sonar isn't available for Mac, btw.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder