VOGONS


Would you be interested in an x86-based alternative to the Raspberry Pi, optimized for retro gaming?

Topic actions

  • This topic is locked. You cannot reply or edit posts.

Reply 180 of 201, by WDStudios

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
bZbZbZ wrote on 2021-06-26, 20:34:

Can you explain to us again how the research & development work that Intel did to develop the Pentium Pro into the Core 2 Penryn over a span of ~13 years demonstrates that taking old designs like K8 + R350 and remaking them on 7nm is cheap?

For one thing, the vast majority of the changes that were made from the Pentium Pro to Penryn were allowed by miniaturization, not required by it. Trying to include an on-die level 2 cache or integrated memory controller during the 600 nm era would have resulted in very large die sizes and therefore unacceptably low yields. You could easily make a P6 on the 45 nm process without those features. Instruction sets like MMX and SSE? Also not mandated by newer fabrication processes. What architectural changes had to be made in order to accommodate smaller nodes?

Second, if there's significant difficulty in adapting planar CMOS designs for FinFET processes, then just replace "7 nm" with "whatever the smallest planar CMOS process is".

debs3759 wrote on 2021-06-26, 20:41:

I just took another look through the whole thread, and the only specific example I can find which you mentioned is the Epia P910

Actually the two examples I gave were the K7 -> K10 and Pentium Pro -> Penryn.

SScorpio wrote on 2021-06-26, 20:59:

Develop a nice retro gaming-focused Linux distro simplifying Wine and DOSBox

Negatory. Too many games have too many issues with those tools.

Since people like posting system specs:

LGA 2011
Core i7 Sandy Bridge @ 3.6 ghz
4 GB of RAM in quad-channel
Geforce GTX 780
1600 x 1200 monitor
Dual-booting WinXP Integral Edition and Win7 Pro 64-bit
-----
XP compatibility is the hill that I will die on.

Reply 181 of 201, by computerguy08

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-28, 10:20:

For one thing, the vast majority of the changes that were made from the Pentium Pro to Penryn were allowed by miniaturization, not required by it. Trying to include an on-die level 2 cache or integrated memory controller during the 600 nm era would have resulted in very large die sizes and therefore unacceptably low yields. You could easily make a P6 on the 45 nm process without those features. Instruction sets like MMX and SSE? Also not mandated by newer fabrication processes. What architectural changes had to be made in order to accommodate smaller nodes?

Ignoring all of the previous posts, which tried to explain more or less why this is impractical, I'm genuinely curious what kind of response will you get from "AMD" (or whoever you're trying to pitch this idea to).

Let's hypothetically assume the idea works out well.
I'll give you benefit of the doubt, go ahead and propose your idea to said companies, let us know of the outcome (production costs, volume, etc..) 😁

EDIT: You might also want to talk with Intel BTW, they made a "die shrink" a while back.

Reply 182 of 201, by ragefury32

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-28, 10:20:
For one thing, the vast majority of the changes that were made from the Pentium Pro to Penryn were allowed by miniaturization, n […]
Show full quote
bZbZbZ wrote on 2021-06-26, 20:34:

Can you explain to us again how the research & development work that Intel did to develop the Pentium Pro into the Core 2 Penryn over a span of ~13 years demonstrates that taking old designs like K8 + R350 and remaking them on 7nm is cheap?

For one thing, the vast majority of the changes that were made from the Pentium Pro to Penryn were allowed by miniaturization, not required by it. Trying to include an on-die level 2 cache or integrated memory controller during the 600 nm era would have resulted in very large die sizes and therefore unacceptably low yields. You could easily make a P6 on the 45 nm process without those features. Instruction sets like MMX and SSE? Also not mandated by newer fabrication processes. What architectural changes had to be made in order to accommodate smaller nodes?

Second, if there's significant difficulty in adapting planar CMOS designs for FinFET processes, then just replace "7 nm" with "whatever the smallest planar CMOS process is".

debs3759 wrote on 2021-06-26, 20:41:

I just took another look through the whole thread, and the only specific example I can find which you mentioned is the Epia P910

Actually the two examples I gave were the K7 -> K10 and Pentium Pro -> Penryn.

First of all, the discussion wasn't about whether this is technically possible as much as it is financially feasible - you are still trying to conflate doable with easy or cheap, and you failed to cite any previous examples of this being done successfully in the same magnitude, as, say, shrinking from 130 nm to something like 32 nm (the P54C shrink for Intel's Xeon Phi/Knights Landing isn't simply a straight-up shrink). Why yes, shrinking process nodes are done all the time, but they are at most 2 steps within the same design, and it also require review by engineers who has to validate the chip after the die shrink so it conforms to the design rules for the new process node (which involve feeding it through EDA tools to ensure that the process change doesn't do something like mess with signal timing, certain features don't end up below minimum spacing or if the alteration of a silicon doesn't create thermal/capacitance issues in a single spot where there previously are none) - and those people don't work for peanuts. If there are changes that needs to be made then a new photomask has to be created for the chip, which in itself isn't cheap.

Even if it's minimal changes you are still talking about taking the resultant work product and sending it off to a foundry (assuming that you book time to fab it - good luck doing that in the middle of the 2021 microchip shortage). At this stage it's still going to be at least 5 digits in outlay, and whatever foundry you are dealing with will still want a minimal commitment for a production run - even at 10 wafers at the usual 300mm diameter wafer size assuming a 84% yield on a 196mm^2 die (typical), that's at least 2000 dies that needs to be tested, validated, packaged and shipped. This isn't like taking new old stock silicon from some broker in Shenzhen and creating a new board for it via PCBWay - which BTW works just fine getting old gear up and running for a modern audience.

Then you want to wire up the CPU core to an old GPU core and an old chipset, which might or might not be built using a similar process which might need some work done to port it over. Then you'll need to hire someone to lay out the floorplan, create the interconnects, validate them, finalize it on a new photomask, set up the packaging for it, and then book time with a foundry to fab it. Oh. And I am assuming that you have a suitcase full of money that you are prepared to spend for any of this. Unless by any chance that resultant chip can beat out an nVidia Tesla P100 for doing Monte Carlo trade algo back-test, in which case, you make back your money and become a silicon god (hint: it can't and won't. If Intel clustered 60 P54C cores with the Xeon Phi and everyone in Fintech pretty much ignored it, I doubt whatever rehash of a 20 year old hardware design will make anyone sit up and take notice - what, will clustering a whole bunch of K8/R350 silicon clustered together suddenly that much better to a data scientist or a quant?) Otherwise the only people who will be interested in it will be those who are not nearly pedantic enough to worship their beige towers, but choose to ignore all the other heavily depreciated hardware found on old settop boxes, thin clients and netbooks which can be had for a song and would fit 95% of the usage scenarios (assuming that you don't want pure DOS audio. Getting ISA soundblaster compatibility on those things means that you actually have to pay attention to the hardware components (certainly not the SB600 or any ATI southbridges), but ain't nobody got time for that).

Or, you know, you can call up AMD and be like:

"Hey Lisa, I need you to take a 20 year old CPU design, port it to 32nm, take a 20 year old GPU design, port that to a similar process node, add a compatible 20 year old southbridge, lay it down on a floorplan, assign a team of engineers to validate the design, create a photomask, setup the packaging, and call GlobalFoundary....

How many do I want? Oh, anywhere between 500 to 1500 chips. And can you make it obscenely cheap, like 2-3 dollars a chip? It needs to go into a bunch of SoC computers that we are selling on the cheap - you can do it because it's 20 year old tech and you can just Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V off your old APU designs, right?

...Hello? Hello? "

Last edited by ragefury32 on 2021-06-28, 21:31. Edited 7 times in total.

Reply 183 of 201, by bloodem

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Damn, is this thread still alive? How? Why? 😁

Edit: oh, now I understand why: comedy 🤣. Your reply was hilarious (and true), ragefury32! 😁

2 x PGA132 / 5 x Socket 3 / 9 x Socket 7 / 12 x SS7 / 1 x Socket 8 / 14 x Slot 1 / 5 x Slot A
5 x Socket 370 / 8 x Socket A / 2 x Socket 478 / 2 x Socket 754 / 3 x Socket 939 / 7 x LGA775 / 1 x LGA1155
Current rig: Ryzen 5 3600X
Backup rig: Core i7 7700k

Reply 184 of 201, by bZbZbZ

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Yep, we actually made it to page 10. Should we set a new stretch goal?

He keeps saying he has 'people' to work out the technical issues but instead of getting to work and getting the device built he just keeps coming back here to dispute our replies. It almost seems as if he doesn't actually have any silicon engineering friends and he's too scared to pitch his idea to AMD until we give in and agree with him. I don't know why we're such a barrier, since Vogons doesn't represent the average customer for this product anyway...

Reply 185 of 201, by WDStudios

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
computerguy08 wrote on 2021-06-28, 11:59:

EDIT: You might also want to talk with Intel BTW, they made a "die shrink" a while back.

As I read the article, it becomes clear that their goals went FAR beyond merely shrinking the Pentium to a 32nm process.

ragefury32 wrote on 2021-06-28, 14:10:

yes, shrinking process nodes are done all the time, but they are at most 2 steps within the same design, and it also require review by engineers who has to validate the chip after the die shrink so it conforms to the design rules for the new process node (which involve feeding it through EDA tools to ensure that the process change doesn't do something like mess with signal timing, certain features don't end up below minimum spacing or if the alteration of a silicon doesn't create thermal/capacitance issues in a single spot where there previously are none) - and those people don't work for peanuts. If there are changes that needs to be made then a new photomask has to be created for the chip, which in itself isn't cheap.

Even if it's minimal changes you are still talking about taking the resultant work product and sending it off to a foundry (assuming that you book time to fab it - good luck doing that in the middle of the 2021 microchip shortage). At this stage it's still going to be at least 5 digits in outlay, and whatever foundry you are dealing with will still want a minimal commitment for a production run - even at 10 wafers at the usual 300mm diameter wafer size assuming a 84% yield on a 196mm^2 die (typical), that's at least 2000 dies that needs to be tested, validated, packaged and shipped. This isn't like taking new old stock silicon from some broker in Shenzhen and creating a new board for it via PCBWay - which BTW works just fine getting old gear up and running for a modern audience.

Then you want to wire up the CPU core to an old GPU core and an old chipset, which might or might not be built using a similar process which might need some work done to port it over. Then you'll need to hire someone to lay out the floorplan, create the interconnects, validate them, finalize it on a new photomask, set up the packaging for it, and then book time with a foundry to fab it. Oh. And I am assuming that you have a suitcase full of money that you are prepared to spend for any of this.

You're right. Creating a whole new microarchitecture from the ground up would obviously be cheaper.

Did you forget that words like "cheap" and "expensive" are relative? Did you forget the point of reference? Here it is again...

WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-19, 07:36:
Socket3 wrote on 2021-06-19, 07:21:

Custom chips are expensive

New designs are expensive. Taking old designs and remaking them on a [newer] process is cheap.

... from page 1.

bZbZbZ wrote on 2021-06-28, 19:22:

He keeps saying he has 'people' to work out the technical issues but instead of getting to work and getting the device built he just keeps coming back here to dispute our replies.

That's because many of the replies are stupid.

bZbZbZ wrote on 2021-06-28, 19:22:

It almost seems as if he doesn't actually have any silicon engineering friends and he's too scared to pitch his idea to AMD until we give in and agree with him.

That is a perfect example of a stupid reply, mostly because you're just making shit up with no evidence whatsoever.

Since people like posting system specs:

LGA 2011
Core i7 Sandy Bridge @ 3.6 ghz
4 GB of RAM in quad-channel
Geforce GTX 780
1600 x 1200 monitor
Dual-booting WinXP Integral Edition and Win7 Pro 64-bit
-----
XP compatibility is the hill that I will die on.

Reply 187 of 201, by debs3759

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-28, 22:42:
bZbZbZ wrote on 2021-06-28, 19:22:

He keeps saying he has 'people' to work out the technical issues but instead of getting to work and getting the device built he just keeps coming back here to dispute our replies.

That's because many of the replies are stupid.

If you think most of us are stupid, why do you keep pushing the same ideas to the same people without telling us what you know that we don't?

See my graphics card database at www.gpuzoo.com
Constantly being worked on. Feel free to message me with any corrections or details of cards you would like me to research and add.

Reply 188 of 201, by SScorpio

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-28, 22:42:
... from page 1. […]
Show full quote
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-19, 07:36:
Socket3 wrote on 2021-06-19, 07:21:

Custom chips are expensive

New designs are expensive. Taking old designs and remaking them on a [newer] process is cheap.

... from page 1.

bZbZbZ wrote on 2021-06-28, 19:22:

He keeps saying he has 'people' to work out the technical issues but instead of getting to work and getting the device built he just keeps coming back here to dispute our replies.

That's because many of the replies are stupid.

Quoting yourself without evidence backing your claim to prove a point while calling others stupid may not bring the type of feedback you're looking for. Not that anyone has any idea what kind of feedback you are looking for. People have been pointing out the issues with your plan, and you just deflect without addressing them.

Unless you have the background to do all the design yourself, you'll need to bring on several people. Salaries would be over $100K/yr per person, add in manufacturing, etc. This will run well over a million to bring out, most likely several million.

None of the mini consoles you are inspired by use custom hardware, it's all dirt cheap off the shelf unwanted low processing power bulk inventory. They paid staff to port over Linux and open-source emulators and create a friendly UI. You want to recreate an old outdated computer that won't have a use outside this niche.

But feel free to prove all of us wrong, it's not that we don't want something like this, give us a computer that can run real DOS and scale from 8008 up to P3/4 speeds with Voodoo 3D acceleration, built-in sound, and costs at most $250-300 and you'll have a ton of sales.

Reply 189 of 201, by Caluser2000

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
SScorpio wrote on 2021-06-29, 00:59:
Quoting yourself without evidence backing your claim to prove a point while calling others stupid may not bring the type of feed […]
Show full quote
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-28, 22:42:
... from page 1. […]
Show full quote
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-19, 07:36:

New designs are expensive. Taking old designs and remaking them on a [newer] process is cheap.

... from page 1.

bZbZbZ wrote on 2021-06-28, 19:22:

He keeps saying he has 'people' to work out the technical issues but instead of getting to work and getting the device built he just keeps coming back here to dispute our replies.

That's because many of the replies are stupid.

Quoting yourself without evidence backing your claim to prove a point while calling others stupid may not bring the type of feedback you're looking for. Not that anyone has any idea what kind of feedback you are looking for. People have been pointing out the issues with your plan, and you just deflect without addressing them.

Unless you have the background to do all the design yourself, you'll need to bring on several people. Salaries would be over $100K/yr per person, add in manufacturing, etc. This will run well over a million to bring out, most likely several million.

None of the mini consoles you are inspired by use custom hardware, it's all dirt cheap off the shelf unwanted low processing power bulk inventory. They paid staff to port over Linux and open-source emulators and create a friendly UI. You want to recreate an old outdated computer that won't have a use outside this niche.

But feel free to prove all of us wrong, it's not that we don't want something like this, give us a computer that can run real DOS and scale from 8008 up to P3/4 speeds with Voodoo 3D acceleration, built-in sound, and costs at most $250-300 and you'll have a ton of sales.

I download 15gigs of game related files and installed them on the P200mmx yesterday without much bother.

Attachments

  • 20210628_153028.jpg
    Filename
    20210628_153028.jpg
    File size
    642.47 KiB
    Views
    492 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception

There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉

Reply 190 of 201, by Caluser2000

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-06-23, 19:49:
ReactOS is a piece of shit. You can't be serious. FreeDOS isn't that compatible with DOS games, let alone Win9X. […]
Show full quote

ReactOS is a piece of shit. You can't be serious.
FreeDOS isn't that compatible with DOS games, let alone Win9X.

Forget about Win9X/ME, you can't distribute it legally since the MS VS. Sun Microsystems legal battle over the Microsoft Java VM that was used with it.
Getting it from the second hand market does not mean that you can distribute it.

Windows 10 is POS as well..😉

ReactOS is just giving users an authentic experience.

Last edited by Caluser2000 on 2021-06-29, 04:32. Edited 3 times in total.

There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉

Reply 191 of 201, by ragefury32

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-28, 22:42:
As I read the article, it becomes clear that their goals went FAR beyond merely shrinking the Pentium to a 32nm process. […]
Show full quote
computerguy08 wrote on 2021-06-28, 11:59:

EDIT: You might also want to talk with Intel BTW, they made a "die shrink" a while back.

As I read the article, it becomes clear that their goals went FAR beyond merely shrinking the Pentium to a 32nm process.

ragefury32 wrote on 2021-06-28, 14:10:

yes, shrinking process nodes are done all the time, but they are at most 2 steps within the same design, and it also require review by engineers who has to validate the chip after the die shrink so it conforms to the design rules for the new process node (which involve feeding it through EDA tools to ensure that the process change doesn't do something like mess with signal timing, certain features don't end up below minimum spacing or if the alteration of a silicon doesn't create thermal/capacitance issues in a single spot where there previously are none) - and those people don't work for peanuts. If there are changes that needs to be made then a new photomask has to be created for the chip, which in itself isn't cheap.

Even if it's minimal changes you are still talking about taking the resultant work product and sending it off to a foundry (assuming that you book time to fab it - good luck doing that in the middle of the 2021 microchip shortage). At this stage it's still going to be at least 5 digits in outlay, and whatever foundry you are dealing with will still want a minimal commitment for a production run - even at 10 wafers at the usual 300mm diameter wafer size assuming a 84% yield on a 196mm^2 die (typical), that's at least 2000 dies that needs to be tested, validated, packaged and shipped. This isn't like taking new old stock silicon from some broker in Shenzhen and creating a new board for it via PCBWay - which BTW works just fine getting old gear up and running for a modern audience.

Then you want to wire up the CPU core to an old GPU core and an old chipset, which might or might not be built using a similar process which might need some work done to port it over. Then you'll need to hire someone to lay out the floorplan, create the interconnects, validate them, finalize it on a new photomask, set up the packaging for it, and then book time with a foundry to fab it. Oh. And I am assuming that you have a suitcase full of money that you are prepared to spend for any of this.

You're right. Creating a whole new microarchitecture from the ground up would obviously be cheaper.

Did you forget that words like "cheap" and "expensive" are relative? Did you forget the point of reference? Here it is again...

WDStudios wrote on 2021-06-19, 07:36:
Socket3 wrote on 2021-06-19, 07:21:

Custom chips are expensive

New designs are expensive. Taking old designs and remaking them on a [newer] process is cheap.

... from page 1.

Eh, no. Once again, you are still holding on to the idea that respinning old design to a new fab is cheap. And no, it is not.

To take old designs and remaking them on a much newer process is tantamount to a re-design (note that I mentioned 32nm, which is the process node before the 22nm FinFET switchover, which would require even more work) - going from a 130nm chip to a 32 nm means you are shrinking the original down to 12.5%, across, what, 3 or 4 process nodes? You still need to have someone go in and look at the silicon floorplan. You still need to do validation and make changes where it violate design rules (and if you are dealing with a processor like the K8 with 105 million transistors the chances for more than 1 design rule violations is almost certain, and making even one change can often have cascading effects which can trigger more changes, all the way until it explodes into a major mess, or the fixes converge. If that happens you'll still need to make changes to the mask. At the end of the day it might end up easier simply taking VHDL of the chip and starting with a clean page layout of the entire thing.

Then you'll need to fab, package and market. And even provided that you can do all of that, you have to do it multiple times, one for the CPU, one for the GPU and one for whatever system controller you use, and even assuming that you can do it, you'll still have to create a board that house all of that...which isn't cheap either.

I would like to see evidence to the contrary, and I don't mean subscribing to the logical fallacy where 22 years of multi-step continual refinement to a CPU with process node changes, extra instructions, bigger cache, faster pre-fetch, improved uncore and all that, hides at its heart the original CPU from way back, and therefore mean that going back to any point in the past would be easy...which would be like saying that it's easy or cheap for Ford to go back to producing a 1975 F150 pickup - since every pickup model year from 1975 to now were just an incremental improvement and addition over its predecessor, so therefore inside a 2021 Ford F150 hides a 1975 model, so all Ford have to do is take a bat to a 2021 F150 and whack out the parts that were tacked on in each and every year. If you beat the truck hard enough the 1975 truck design will come back out again.

Why yes, "cheap" and "expensive" are relative, but unless you are the kind of person who thinks that a Cessna Citation Latitude is "cheaper" compared to a Dassault Falcon 2000 and have the financial grunt to easily afford both, this is not likely the kind of money that you have in your disposal to make such a thing happen either. And if this is an attempt to drum up investment support to get you the resources to make it happen, well, you are not doing a good job presenting your case.

Last edited by ragefury32 on 2021-06-29, 15:48. Edited 3 times in total.

Reply 192 of 201, by Caluser2000

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Did someone mention DOOM?

Attachments

  • 20210629_150528.jpg
    Filename
    20210629_150528.jpg
    File size
    655.93 KiB
    Views
    481 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception
  • 20210629_150501.jpg
    Filename
    20210629_150501.jpg
    File size
    674.63 KiB
    Views
    481 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception

There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉

Reply 193 of 201, by Doornkaat

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I have consulted my cristal ball and I have come to the predictionion that within the next fifty years software will be generally avaliable that is capable of creating complex custom chip designs with sufficient reliability to create a product similar to the OP's vision. There will also be fabrication plants that allow individuals to do small runs of custom chips.
It won't matter much for retro gaming though because hardware emulation will advance and be integrated into simulation so everyone will get a virtual 'hands on' experience of the humbler days of computing.
Also turtleneck sweaters will make a bombastic comeback!

Reply 194 of 201, by Caluser2000

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Doornkaat wrote on 2021-06-29, 04:31:

I have consulted my cristal ball and I have come to the predictionion that within the next fifty years software will be generally avaliable that is capable of creating complex custom chip designs with sufficient reliability to create a product similar to the OP's vision. There will also be fabrication plants that allow individuals to do small runs of custom chips.
It won't matter much for retro gaming though because hardware emulation will advance and be integrated into simulation so everyone will get a virtual 'hands on' experience of the humbler days of computing.
Also turtleneck sweaters will make a bombastic comeback!

As long as it runs on Dos I guess it might work..😉

And I'm STILL waiting for my own Jetsons flying car. The flying carpet is rather tattered.....

There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉

Reply 196 of 201, by xcomcmdr

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-06-29, 02:43:
xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-06-23, 19:49:
ReactOS is a piece of shit. You can't be serious. FreeDOS isn't that compatible with DOS games, let alone Win9X. […]
Show full quote

ReactOS is a piece of shit. You can't be serious.
FreeDOS isn't that compatible with DOS games, let alone Win9X.

Forget about Win9X/ME, you can't distribute it legally since the MS VS. Sun Microsystems legal battle over the Microsoft Java VM that was used with it.
Getting it from the second hand market does not mean that you can distribute it.

Windows 10 is POS as well..😉

ReactOS is just giving users an authentic experience.

At least Windows 10 installs and boots up.

Also, it's actually an OS.

Reply 197 of 201, by Caluser2000

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-06-29, 07:36:
Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-06-29, 02:43:
xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-06-23, 19:49:
ReactOS is a piece of shit. You can't be serious. FreeDOS isn't that compatible with DOS games, let alone Win9X. […]
Show full quote

ReactOS is a piece of shit. You can't be serious.
FreeDOS isn't that compatible with DOS games, let alone Win9X.

Forget about Win9X/ME, you can't distribute it legally since the MS VS. Sun Microsystems legal battle over the Microsoft Java VM that was used with it.
Getting it from the second hand market does not mean that you can distribute it.

Windows 10 is POS as well..😉

ReactOS is just giving users an authentic experience.

At least Windows 10 installs and boots up.

Also, it's actually an OS.

As does Davuan Jessie, a syvsinit based Linux operating system, on my 1997 Pentium 200mmx and which booted to the desktop on 3 minutes. Without the need for a MickySoft account or activation no less. And it has those innovative curved windows thingies Windows 11 has.

I downloaded 15gigs of game related files like DOOM, HEXEN, HERETIC etc etc on it yesterday...😉

Windows 10 doesn't:

Attachments

  • 20210629_150528.jpg
    Filename
    20210629_150528.jpg
    File size
    655.93 KiB
    Views
    378 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception
  • 20210630_001553.jpg
    Filename
    20210630_001553.jpg
    File size
    793.81 KiB
    Views
    387 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception
  • 20210629_111256.jpg
    Filename
    20210629_111256.jpg
    File size
    677.81 KiB
    Views
    390 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception
Last edited by Caluser2000 on 2021-06-29, 12:48. Edited 1 time in total.

There's a glitch in the matrix.
A founding member of the 286 appreciation society.
Apparently 32-bit is dead and nobody likes P4s.
Of course, as always, I'm open to correction...😉

Reply 198 of 201, by Doornkaat

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-06-29, 06:42:
Doornkaat wrote on 2021-06-29, 04:31:

Also turtleneck sweaters will make a bombastic comeback!

This is a future I cannot abide.

You'll be happy to know my predictions are based purely on assumption with a side of nothing at all.

Reply 199 of 201, by chrismeyer6

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Doornkaat wrote on 2021-06-29, 12:30:
mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-06-29, 06:42:
Doornkaat wrote on 2021-06-29, 04:31:

Also turtleneck sweaters will make a bombastic comeback!

This is a future I cannot abide.

You'll be happy to know my predictions are based purely on assumption with a side of nothing at all.

Ok good cause I really don't like turtle neck shirts