Win2K is actually a good option, too. Supports a lot of the same stuff as XP, but lighter and smaller.

That's an excellent W98 machine (or shitty XP rig, your choice). For ultimate XP gaming I personally woldn't go bellow Core2Duo and something like GTX280.

jheronimus wrote on 2022-06-11, 12:20:

Win2K is actually a good option, too. Supports a lot of the same stuff as XP, but lighter and smaller.

At least you didn't tell him to use WinME.

Why not both?

kitten.may.cry wrote on 2022-06-11, 12:22:

jheronimus wrote on 2022-06-11, 12:20:

Win2K is actually a good option, too. Supports a lot of the same stuff as XP, but lighter and smaller.

At least you didn't tell him to use WinME.

I remember seeing as a kid Windows ME on store shelves when it launched and thought "WOW SO COOL!" 🤣

What do you think, would Win2k be a better fit?

DosFreak wrote on 2022-06-11, 12:24:

Why not both?

I'll still get speed issues on DOS no matter what with my CPU right? Would there be any difference using Dosbox in 2000 vs 98?

Can you tell I'm extremely new to working with Dos on older hardware? 🤣

I had both xp sp2 and 98se on my coppermine 1.1GHz + FX 5900se
I mostly used 98 but XP is nicer for network use, and I did play some games that made more sense on XP,

Use Windows 98SE with NUSB and the 2004 Microsoft update CD available on vogonsdrivers.

DO NOT use the unofficial SP3 as it causes way too many problems because it includes files from newer versions of Windows and just screws stuff up.

That system will be fine for DOS games that are not CPU sensitive. However you will want a sound card that actually supports DOS properly.

DOSBox is not going to be quick enough with that system IMO.

It will also make a really sucky XP machine.

Saidian wrote on 2022-06-11, 11:48:

I have been wondering past few days if the system I'm building would be better served with having 98 or XP as the OS. […]
Show full quote

I have been wondering past few days if the system I'm building would be better served with having 98 or XP as the OS.

I still have a bunch of parts to get but I've nailed down the main 4:

Pentium iii 1ghz Coppermine
DFI CS61-EC Motherboard
512 PC133 SDRAM (Max the above supports)
Nvidia Geforce 4 Ti4200
Sound Blaster Live SB0220

I do have a few older pre 1995 DOS games I want to play but considering I can use Dosbox for those (right?) I'm wondering if XP would be a better fit than 98 considering the majority of my library playing games up to Freelancer, KOTOR and possibly World of Warcraft Vanilla. Will be running a good amount of console emulation too.

Will the higher requirements of XP have a negative impact or will it not really matter?

Windows 95 OSR2 (skip 98 if you don't need DirectX 9.0). 😎

edit: The above with the caveat that there are some titles that you mention that are right on the cusp of if they'll be usable or not. I found out that WarCraft III (and by extension WoW) require DX 8.1 and thus are just out of reach on Windows 95, even though a PIII 1 GHz is a beast of a 95-machine otherwise.

Based on the specs you list, I would go with Windows 98SE especially if the intent is to run DOS games.

Though I would also use a different sound card like an ESS Solo-1 or Aureal Vortex 2-based card. That's just my preference.

For XP, you'll want a beefier system.

Saidian wrote on 2022-06-11, 11:48:

I have been wondering past few days if the system I'm building would be better served with having 98 or XP as the OS. […]
Show full quote

I have been wondering past few days if the system I'm building would be better served with having 98 or XP as the OS.

I still have a bunch of parts to get but I've nailed down the main 4:

Pentium iii 1ghz Coppermine
DFI CS61-EC Motherboard
512 PC133 SDRAM (Max the above supports)
Nvidia Geforce 4 Ti4200
Sound Blaster Live SB0220

I do have a few older pre 1995 DOS games I want to play but considering I can use Dosbox for those (right?) I'm wondering if XP would be a better fit than 98 considering the majority of my library playing games up to Freelancer, KOTOR and possibly World of Warcraft Vanilla. Will be running a good amount of console emulation too.

Will the higher requirements of XP have a negative impact or will it not really matter?

I see no point to use Win98 with a Ti 4200 and early 2000 games
Anyhow keep in mind that you are pairing a CPU from 2000 with a VGA from 2002, so you'll not get the most out of it

Shponglefan wrote on 2022-06-11, 16:02:

For XP, you'll want a beefier system.

XP was introduced in late 2001 and was used/popular until the introduction of Windows 7 in late 2009.
In my opinion there is not only one XP era but it can be split at least in 3, and for the first part, although the Coppermine 1GHz is a little on the weak side, he's system is gonna be fine

Jura Tastatura wrote on 2022-06-11, 12:21:

That's an excellent W98 machine (or shitty XP rig, your choice). For ultimate XP gaming I personally woldn't go bellow Core2Duo and something like GTX280.

I think windows xp works fine in that. Not everything has to be "ultimate" or whatever that means.
I think it would be better to choose the OS based on what you want to do with the computer. For KOTOR and freelancer windows xp would be better.

framebuffer wrote on 2022-06-11, 16:32:

XP was introduced in late 2001 and was used/popular until the introduction of Windows 7 in late 2009.
In my opinion there is not only one XP era but it can be split at least in 3, and for the first part, although the Coppermine 1GHz is a little on the weak side, he's system is gonna be fine

True, there is a wide time period which covers the XP era. It ultimately comes down to individual goals.

Long as I can run the games I listed in Win98SE I guess I'll go with that then.
All I'm focused on is getting the best performance with the hardware I'll have, don't want to install XP if it's just gonna bring down the overall performance.

Shponglefan wrote on 2022-06-11, 16:02:

Though I would also use a different sound card like an ESS Solo-1 or Aureal Vortex 2-based card. That's just my preference.

I don't know, the SB0220 is a good sound card with EAX support, which you probably want in a W98 system. Also decent in DOS.
The Vortex 2 has A3D which is also desirable (though I think much more niche).

As for the Solo-1, it is a great sound card, but how much do you gain in DOS compatiblity without the mainboard having SBLINK connector (at least I think this one does lack that) that it's worth losing native EAX and/or A3D?

Don’t get me wrong, 2001-era-Me would have been rushing to install XP but 2022-era-Me would stick with Win98.

Or have multiple OS. Win98, XP, and some lightweight Linux distro.

Yeh I don't really want to dual boot useless it was 100% necessary

Btw guys I should probably mention other than the RAM and GPU I either already have the main components on hand or they've been shipped and are on the way to me.

RandomStranger wrote on 2022-06-11, 17:03:

I don't know, the SB0220 is a good sound card with EAX support, which you probably want in a W98 system. Also decent in DOS.
The Vortex 2 has A3D which is also desirable (though I think much more niche).

As for the Solo-1, it is a great sound card, but how much do you gain in DOS compatiblity without the mainboard having SBLINK connector (at least I think this one does lack that) that it's worth losing native EAX and/or A3D?

It comes down to preference. In my own experience, I prize A3D support above early EAX support; I find 3D sound via A3D to be a superior experience than early EAX. And for DOS gaming specifically, I like having an internal wavetable header to use wavetable cards for MIDI music.

In my current Win98 build I use a Diamond MX300 which yields A3D 2.0, EAX 1.0, and wavetable MIDI support via a Yucatan FX wavetable card.

Ultimately it comes down to preferences/priorities and which games people prefer to play.