Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2020-06-16, 21:50:

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-16, 21:02:

With the correct updated version of UT99 (all patches installed) and the correct nvidia driver, you can actually get a better result with the use of a GF4-ti4200 and the other faster GF4's.

I believe you, as I had gotten myself a Leadtek GeForce 3 Ti200 a few years later and had a similar experience. What I meant was, at the time those games first came out, Voodoo3 was superior to the TNT2.

Later patches did improve D3D support, especially for UT and other games based on that engine. However, people still seem to prefer Glide for Diablo2, even to this day. Something about D3D having a slightly different look and/or some visual glitches.

I think there are more to the story, than Voodoo might be or might not be superior. Most of us old fart's, that were at the age of between childhood and early 20's back then. We have a tendency to chose what we remember as nostalgia. Like I used a TNT2 back then, and never owned a V3 before the 2010's. And then there are people wanting a V3, because that was what they used back then. All this is understandable and all. We all want to use what we used back then, because of nostalgia. And that is all good and understandable.

Now, there are the other segment, that claim something Voodoo3 superiour to TNT2. Those people are the segment, that have never used computers back then, due to being too young or not been born or other reasons like that. You know.

What is better than the other (V3 and TNT2) is a deeper and really broad discution. You can have both Glide and DiretX games looking good, and firstly it is all about what you personally prefer when we are talking image quality. Then we need talk about how fast the machine is. And up to a certain level of power, you have the Voodoo3 performing better than a TNT2. On some chipsets the TNT2 is extremely unstable, and even on the same chipset the TNT2 is unstable on some motherboards and stable on other. Last we need to talk 16 versus 32 bit colours. Because the Voodoo3 does not have 32. We need to factor in the CPU you have as well, as the TNT2 is a bad choice for K6-II machines, if you want to use the card to it's fullest performance.

To say it short. Voodoo2 or Voodoo3 is not really the answer to all, and it is most certainly not the best. It all depends on if that card is the best choice for what you want. Sometimes V3 is better than TNT2, and some times TNT2 is better than V3.

darry wrote on 2020-06-16, 21:59:

My current main retro setup is a P3 1400Mhz with an FX 5900 (AGP) and a Voodoo 3 3000 and I have been using various flavour of […]
Show full quote

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-16, 20:52:

Yup. I know most of those things, and of course you use an S3 of good quality. Those three cards I mentioned, are all better sui […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2020-06-16, 00:26:

Not sure I agree with the "way better Dos setup for 2D gaming" . According to both my personal experience and https://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/ , other than Alien Trilogy in high colour and maybe the corner case of Tomb Raider with a PCX2, I don't see why the S3 and Cirrus based cards were significantly better than a Voodoo 3 . The Voodoo3 also had excellent VGA image quality in 2D (good RAMDAC and well designed analogue filtering), whereas the output quality of the S3 and CL cards varied between OEMs. Then there is the fact that, with Voodoo2, you still needed the crappy pass-through cable or a monitor with multiple VGA inputs . Then, there were the SLI related image issues. I had some at the time using two matched Voodoo2 cards and could never fully resolve them (gave up before I did). I'm not saying it's impossible to resolve them, just that it can be a hassle . Finally, there's the fact that a Voodoo2 SLI plus 2D card requires 3 PCI slots instead of one for a Voodoo 3.

Yup. I know most of those things, and of course you use an S3 of good quality. Those three cards I mentioned, are all better suited for 2D gfx in Dos, than any Voodoo cards. And of course you use high quality loopback cables, and if you happens to have mis matching V2's, then you use FasVoodoo 4.6 drivers. Issues solved, and you get a better overall machine for Dos games.

These things I mention, are kind of common knowledge here on Vogons. Just go and do a search, however it will be some job, to read through +10 years of posts.

The reason why those cards I mention, are better for Dos gaming, is that they are 100% compatible with Dos titles. Again. Use a card of good brand, as you get stuff like bad black levels on S3 cards. I recommend the Number9 version of Virge-325 for anything faster than Pentium-133/166. Voodoo3 for K6-II/III machines, because they are fastest and most compatible with those CPU's, and because you need more horsepowers for TNT2 and G400. Going for Pentium3-1000 and faster, I recommend something like TNT2 or GF2. As that CPU can deliver what the cards require.

My current main retro setup is a P3 1400Mhz with an FX 5900 (AGP) and a Voodoo 3 3000 and I have been using various flavour of S3 , CL and Trident cards and many others since the early nineties . I have also been lurking on Vogons for over a decade .
My point is not that that that the Voodoo 3 is necessarily THE BEST for any specific purpose (Glide, old VGA games compatibility, 2D image quality), but that the combination of strengths it does have make it a very compelling and practical choice .

You mention that CL and S3 cards are better compatibility wise, that may well be true, though, except for a things like lack of a dedicated CGA mode (not significant for my use), I don't find the Voodoo 3's VGA core to have significant issues with the games and demos that I have tried . The general consensus on Vogons, as far as I know, is that the Voodoo 3 VGA core is well regarded . That said, if there is a list of specific incompatibilities I may have missed, please point me towards it. Even if there is no list, I do not disagree that specifc incompatibilities must certainly exist . As an example, the Amnesia demo crashes on my Voodoo 3, but works fine on my FX 5900 . Nothing is 100% compatible with all VGA software and I, for one, will not be running after an ET4000 to play the Copper demo 100% accurately, for example. Nor will I be going back to a CRT (another point to consider if you want maximum compatibility with software that manipulates the VGA CRTC in peculiar ways) anytime soon .

As for my issue with Voodoo2 SLI, over 20 years ago, I was using matched Guillemot Voodoo 2 cards and still had issues, no matter what driver I tried . I then got a Voodoo3 2000 (at the time), that just worked without any issues with the games I was playing at the time (I was not playing ancient hard-coded Glide games that only work well on a Voodoo 1) . Things might well have improved for V2 SLI, since then, driver wise (though I still see the odd rant on Vogons), but I did not see the point in trying again as Voodoo2 SLI, does not have an advantage over Voodoo3 (Glide-wise) for my use case .

All that said, I hope you don't feel the need to convince me . I certainly don't feel the need to convince you . If it does happen, either way, and to whatever extent, thats fine too. Exchanging opinions and explaining their basis is one of the more interesting things on Vogons, IMHO . So if you do feel like you want talk more about VGA compatibility, please do . I am definitely open to learning something new on a subject that is interesting to me

Cheers!

Well... I will never use the cards I talk about on anything post Pentium1. Like. That is Windows territory and not Dos territory.
And when I say best for dos, and talk about PCI cards, then I am in reality referring to 486 or Pentium with PCI-Slot.

I need to ask you and to be clear. When you are saying Dos, do you mean Win9x included? That is not Dos, that is Windows.

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-16, 23:45:

What is better than the other (V3 and TNT2) is a deeper and really broad discution.

Yes, there are a lot of things to consider when doing an in-depth comparison between the two cards.

My point was simply that the games I mentioned ran better on a Voodoo3 when they first came out. Later patches evened things out in terms of performance, but minor visual differences between Glide and D3D still make Glide the preferred option for some people.

It's pretty easy. If you aren't fussy or nostalgic about Glide, get a TNT. It will be much cheaper if nothing else. If you care about Glide and overall quality / compatibility get a v3. If you want high compatibility and only want Glide consider c 2 with a high quality 2 card.

darry wrote on 2020-06-16, 21:59:

Nor will I be going back to a CRT (another point to consider if you want maximum compatibility with software that manipulates the VGA CRTC in peculiar ways) anytime soon .

that's sad

I'm all about using modern displays and scalers too, most of the time. But sometimes you just gotta break out the 21" VGA CRT and live the dream

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-16, 23:51:

Well... I will never use the cards I talk about on anything post Pentium1. Like. That is Windows territory and not Dos territory […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2020-06-16, 21:59:

My current main retro setup is a P3 1400Mhz with an FX 5900 (AGP) and a Voodoo 3 3000 and I have been using various flavour of […]
Show full quote

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-16, 20:52:

Yup. I know most of those things, and of course you use an S3 of good quality. Those three cards I mentioned, are all better suited for 2D gfx in Dos, than any Voodoo cards. And of course you use high quality loopback cables, and if you happens to have mis matching V2's, then you use FasVoodoo 4.6 drivers. Issues solved, and you get a better overall machine for Dos games.

These things I mention, are kind of common knowledge here on Vogons. Just go and do a search, however it will be some job, to read through +10 years of posts.

The reason why those cards I mention, are better for Dos gaming, is that they are 100% compatible with Dos titles. Again. Use a card of good brand, as you get stuff like bad black levels on S3 cards. I recommend the Number9 version of Virge-325 for anything faster than Pentium-133/166. Voodoo3 for K6-II/III machines, because they are fastest and most compatible with those CPU's, and because you need more horsepowers for TNT2 and G400. Going for Pentium3-1000 and faster, I recommend something like TNT2 or GF2. As that CPU can deliver what the cards require.

My current main retro setup is a P3 1400Mhz with an FX 5900 (AGP) and a Voodoo 3 3000 and I have been using various flavour of S3 , CL and Trident cards and many others since the early nineties . I have also been lurking on Vogons for over a decade .
My point is not that that that the Voodoo 3 is necessarily THE BEST for any specific purpose (Glide, old VGA games compatibility, 2D image quality), but that the combination of strengths it does have make it a very compelling and practical choice .

You mention that CL and S3 cards are better compatibility wise, that may well be true, though, except for a things like lack of a dedicated CGA mode (not significant for my use), I don't find the Voodoo 3's VGA core to have significant issues with the games and demos that I have tried . The general consensus on Vogons, as far as I know, is that the Voodoo 3 VGA core is well regarded . That said, if there is a list of specific incompatibilities I may have missed, please point me towards it. Even if there is no list, I do not disagree that specifc incompatibilities must certainly exist . As an example, the Amnesia demo crashes on my Voodoo 3, but works fine on my FX 5900 . Nothing is 100% compatible with all VGA software and I, for one, will not be running after an ET4000 to play the Copper demo 100% accurately, for example. Nor will I be going back to a CRT (another point to consider if you want maximum compatibility with software that manipulates the VGA CRTC in peculiar ways) anytime soon .

As for my issue with Voodoo2 SLI, over 20 years ago, I was using matched Guillemot Voodoo 2 cards and still had issues, no matter what driver I tried . I then got a Voodoo3 2000 (at the time), that just worked without any issues with the games I was playing at the time (I was not playing ancient hard-coded Glide games that only work well on a Voodoo 1) . Things might well have improved for V2 SLI, since then, driver wise (though I still see the odd rant on Vogons), but I did not see the point in trying again as Voodoo2 SLI, does not have an advantage over Voodoo3 (Glide-wise) for my use case .

All that said, I hope you don't feel the need to convince me . I certainly don't feel the need to convince you . If it does happen, either way, and to whatever extent, thats fine too. Exchanging opinions and explaining their basis is one of the more interesting things on Vogons, IMHO . So if you do feel like you want talk more about VGA compatibility, please do . I am definitely open to learning something new on a subject that is interesting to me

Cheers!

Well... I will never use the cards I talk about on anything post Pentium1. Like. That is Windows territory and not Dos territory.
And when I say best for dos, and talk about PCI cards, then I am in reality referring to 486 or Pentium with PCI-Slot.

I need to ask you and to be clear. When you are saying Dos, do you mean Win9x included? That is not Dos, that is Windows.

When I say DOS, I mean pure DOS real mode (without Windows running) . The version is version 7.1 , as provided with Windows 98 SE . I don't even boot into Windows by default (I have set BootGUI=0 in MSDOS.SYS) . I obviously sometimes use Windows 98 SE as well .

For me, the reasons for not running DOS 6.22 , for example, are the following
a) I hate dual booting (I still need to run Windows 98 SE on the machine and Windows 98 SE runs best under its included DOS 7.1
b) Lack of FAT32 support
c) I use a drive greater than 8.4GB in size
d) I have found no compelling reason to use an older version of DOS . Everything I've tried so far runs fine under DOS 7.1

With the exception of early Sierra and LucasArts titles, I rarely go pre-VGA (before 1987). I have not yet had to face a situation where FAT32 won't work and if I ever do, I have the room for a FAT16 partition (or even a FAT12 one, if it comes to that).

I obviously use SETMUL to go down to 386-like speeds when necessary . If I need to go slower (not a common occurrence) , there are, of course, multiple slowdown utilities to choose from .

Why do I run everything from such a wide time period (1987 to 2001 approximately) on a single machine ?

Well, first, because I can and, second, because I just don't have room for a multitude of machines (386 and/or 486, Pentium 1) . I do also have a late vintage Windows XP machine, a Windows 7 dedicated one and a current Windows 10 one . The XP one is not even currently plugged in, because I mostly don't need it .

Current retro machine specs (always in a state of flux, as I love to tweak things) :
- Pentium 3 Tualatin-S @1400MHz with 512K L2 cache
- Ipox 3ETI23 industrial motherboard (815EP-based with 3 ISA slots and onboard Fast Ethernet)
- 512 MB (2x256) of PC133 SDRAM
- MSI AGP Nvidia FX 5900
- 3Dfx Voodoo 3 3000 (PCI)
- 500GB Samsung 860EVO using a JMD330 Serial ATA/IDE bridge (with 3 partitions, each smaller than 127GB)
- 5 and 1/4" floppy drive
- 3 and 1/2" floppy drive
- LG GSA-4167 DVD-ROM drive
- Gravis Ultrasound Ultralsound 3.73 with 1 MB RAM
- Creative AWE64 Value with 28MB RAM (thanks to SIMMCONN revival)
- Mediatrix Audiotrix 3DXG (OPL3SA) with Monster 3D 4MB GS (Dream 9733) daughterboard (for SB Pro compatibility and authentic embedded OPL3)
- Windows 98SE with big HDD patch
- MIDIMAN MIDISport 2x4 running in passive mode and with output 2 looped into input 2 (turning it into 1x3 midi splitter) connected to AWE64 via DB15 to MIDI cable
- first generation Roland MT32
- Roland SC-88VL
- Yamaha MU500
- Akai DPS12 multi-track recorder used as an audio mixer
- RCA brand 4x1 component AV switcher (not enough inputs on the DPS12)

EDIT: Oh, and if nobody noticed, I'm not into period-correctness . Form follows function .

maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-06-17, 00:43:

darry wrote on 2020-06-16, 21:59:

Nor will I be going back to a CRT (another point to consider if you want maximum compatibility with software that manipulates the VGA CRTC in peculiar ways) anytime soon .

that's sad

I'm all about using modern displays and scalers too, most of the time. But sometimes you just gotta break out the 21" VGA CRT and live the dream

I guess it is, to a point . I have used several CRT computer monitors . I remember them all .
a ) TTX 14 inch display that topped off at 1024x768 @87Hz interlaced with 0.28mm dot pitch (nice and sharp at 640x480 or below, OK at 800x600).
b) IBM branded monitor that came with PS/Valuepoint that topped off 1024x768@60Hz (maybe 70Hz) with 0.28mm dot pitch . Decently sharp at 1024x768, better at 800x600 .
c) Daewoo CMC-1502B1 . This was definitely the dimmest so far, straight from the factory . Still decently sharp all around
d) Viewsonic PT771 Nice and bright, OK geometry, not so great convergence and, over time, unfixably bad focus . Was nice when new .
e) Viewsonic P95F Very good on all fronts (though not perfect) except for its weight and size . (gave it to my mother who used it for a while and then found it a new home)

Then, I got my first LCD, a Samsung 204B . It has a 1600x1200 TN panel with an 800:1 contrast ratio, some backlight bleed, but like all TN LCD panels, it has perfect geometry, perfect convergence and perfect focus (concept does not apply to an LCD, but you know what I mean) . I was hooked . Since then, I've own multiple VA and IPS monitors, all much better than the 204B and I have never regretted not having an analogue RGB CRT computer monitor (>31KHz)anymore .

I just don't feel that the 640x400 (double scanned 320x200) and higher resolutions on a relatively fine pitch CRT look all that special compared to an LCD with integer scaling (or nearly so) .

I do, however, feel that 15KHz interlaced CRT monitors do have a characteristic look that I am sensitive and do appreciate . I would probably let myself be convinced to buy one if I had enough vintage consoles that could benefit from it, as I only have an SNES, Atari 2600, PS2 and Retron 5 and I seriously doubt I could coax 200/240 line output out of the Retron 5 (or maybe I could with an HDMI to VGA converter and the OSSC, hmmm) . That is assuming I could find an affordable low-hour one ,

That's just my opinion .

EDIT: Corrected typo

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 00:57:

When I say DOS, I mean pure DOS real mode (without Windows running) . The version is version 7.1 , as provided with Windows 98 S […]
Show full quote

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-16, 23:51:

Well... I will never use the cards I talk about on anything post Pentium1. Like. That is Windows territory and not Dos territory […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2020-06-16, 21:59:

My current main retro setup is a P3 1400Mhz with an FX 5900 (AGP) and a Voodoo 3 3000 and I have been using various flavour of […]
Show full quote

My current main retro setup is a P3 1400Mhz with an FX 5900 (AGP) and a Voodoo 3 3000 and I have been using various flavour of S3 , CL and Trident cards and many others since the early nineties . I have also been lurking on Vogons for over a decade .
My point is not that that that the Voodoo 3 is necessarily THE BEST for any specific purpose (Glide, old VGA games compatibility, 2D image quality), but that the combination of strengths it does have make it a very compelling and practical choice .

You mention that CL and S3 cards are better compatibility wise, that may well be true, though, except for a things like lack of a dedicated CGA mode (not significant for my use), I don't find the Voodoo 3's VGA core to have significant issues with the games and demos that I have tried . The general consensus on Vogons, as far as I know, is that the Voodoo 3 VGA core is well regarded . That said, if there is a list of specific incompatibilities I may have missed, please point me towards it. Even if there is no list, I do not disagree that specifc incompatibilities must certainly exist . As an example, the Amnesia demo crashes on my Voodoo 3, but works fine on my FX 5900 . Nothing is 100% compatible with all VGA software and I, for one, will not be running after an ET4000 to play the Copper demo 100% accurately, for example. Nor will I be going back to a CRT (another point to consider if you want maximum compatibility with software that manipulates the VGA CRTC in peculiar ways) anytime soon .

As for my issue with Voodoo2 SLI, over 20 years ago, I was using matched Guillemot Voodoo 2 cards and still had issues, no matter what driver I tried . I then got a Voodoo3 2000 (at the time), that just worked without any issues with the games I was playing at the time (I was not playing ancient hard-coded Glide games that only work well on a Voodoo 1) . Things might well have improved for V2 SLI, since then, driver wise (though I still see the odd rant on Vogons), but I did not see the point in trying again as Voodoo2 SLI, does not have an advantage over Voodoo3 (Glide-wise) for my use case .

All that said, I hope you don't feel the need to convince me . I certainly don't feel the need to convince you . If it does happen, either way, and to whatever extent, thats fine too. Exchanging opinions and explaining their basis is one of the more interesting things on Vogons, IMHO . So if you do feel like you want talk more about VGA compatibility, please do . I am definitely open to learning something new on a subject that is interesting to me

Cheers!

Well... I will never use the cards I talk about on anything post Pentium1. Like. That is Windows territory and not Dos territory.
And when I say best for dos, and talk about PCI cards, then I am in reality referring to 486 or Pentium with PCI-Slot.

I need to ask you and to be clear. When you are saying Dos, do you mean Win9x included? That is not Dos, that is Windows.

When I say DOS, I mean pure DOS real mode (without Windows running) . The version is version 7.1 , as provided with Windows 98 SE . I don't even boot into Windows by default (I have set BootGUI=0 in MSDOS.SYS) . I obviously sometimes use Windows 98 SE as well .

For me, the reasons for not running DOS 6.22 , for example, are the following
a) I hate dual booting (I still need to run Windows 98 SE on the machine and Windows 98 SE runs best under its included DOS 7.1
b) Lack of FAT32 support
c) I use a drive greater than 8.4GB in size
d) I have found no compelling reason to use an older version of DOS . Everything I've tried so far runs fine under DOS 7.1

With the exception of early Sierra and LucasArts titles, I rarely go pre-VGA (before 1987). I have not yet had to face a situation where FAT32 won't work and if I ever do, I have the room for a FAT16 partition (or even a FAT12 one, if it comes to that).

I obviously use SETMUL to go down to 386-like speeds when necessary . If I need to go slower (not a common occurrence) , there are, of course, multiple slowdown utilities to choose from .

Why do I run everything from such a wide time period (1987 to 2001 approximately) on a single machine ?

Well, first, because I can and, second, because I just don't have room for a multitude of machines (386 and/or 486, Pentium 1) . I do also have a late vintage Windows XP machine, a Windows 7 dedicated one and a current Windows 10 one . The XP one is not even currently plugged in, because I mostly don't need it .

Current retro machine specs (always in a state of flux, as I love to tweak things) :
- Pentium 3 Tualatin-S @1400MHz with 512K L2 cache
- Ipox 3ETI23 industrial motherboard (815EP-based with 3 ISA slots and onboard Fast Ethernet)
- 512 MB (2x256) of PC133 SDRAM
- MSI AGP Nvidia FX 5900
- 3Dfx Voodoo 3 3000 (PCI)
- 500GB Samsung 860EVO using a JMD330 Serial ATA/IDE bridge (with 3 partitions, each smaller than 127GB)
- 5 and 1/4" floppy drive
- 3 and 1/2" floppy drive
- LG GSA-4167 DVD-ROM drive
- Gravis Ultrasound Ultralsound 3.73 with 1 MB RAM
- Creative AWE64 Value with 28MB RAM (thanks to SIMMCONN revival)
- Mediatrix Audiotrix 3DXG (OPL3SA) with Monster 3D 4MB GS (Dream 9733) daughterboard (for SB Pro compatibility and authentic embedded OPL3)
- Windows 98SE with big HDD patch
- MIDIMAN MIDISport 2x4 running in passive mode and with output 2 looped into input 2 (turning it into 1x3 midi splitter) connected to AWE64 via DB15 to MIDI cable
- first generation Roland MT32
- Roland SC-88VL
- Yamaha MU500
- Akai DPS12 multi-track recorder used as an audio mixer
- RCA brand 4x1 component AV switcher (not enough inputs on the DPS12)

EDIT: Oh, and if nobody noticed, I'm not into period-correctness . Form follows function .

Ahh... I see.
To me, calling Win9x Dos, is the same as calling Os/2 with Dos build in, as Dos. Dos and Win9x are two different operating systems. Same as Os/2 and Dos being two different operating systems. Both Os/2 and Win9x have Dos build in, yet they are called something else for a reason.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2020-06-17, 00:20:

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-16, 23:45:

What is better than the other (V3 and TNT2) is a deeper and really broad discution.

Yes, there are a lot of things to consider when doing an in-depth comparison between the two cards.

My point was simply that the games I mentioned ran better on a Voodoo3 when they first came out. Later patches evened things out in terms of performance, but minor visual differences between Glide and D3D still make Glide the preferred option for some people.

Running software in first edition and vanilla, are a factor to counter in as well. I am just not the kind of person that want to run that, because of bugs and glitches today. If there is updates, and I have them, then I update the software. Today we have so many options for cheap, compared to back then, when the hardware was new.

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 01:36:

I guess it is, to a point . I have used several CRT computer monitors . I remember them all . a ) TTX 14 inch display that topp […]
Show full quote

maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-06-17, 00:43:

darry wrote on 2020-06-16, 21:59:

Nor will I be going back to a CRT (another point to consider if you want maximum compatibility with software that manipulates the VGA CRTC in peculiar ways) anytime soon .

that's sad

I'm all about using modern displays and scalers too, most of the time. But sometimes you just gotta break out the 21" VGA CRT and live the dream

I guess it is, to a point . I have used several CRT computer monitors . I remember them all .
a ) TTX 14 inch display that topped off at 1024x768 @87Hz interlaced with 0.28mm dot pitch (nice and sharp at 640x480 or below, OK at 800x600).
b) IBM branded monitor that came with PS/Valuepoint that topped off 1024x768@60Hz (maybe 70Hz) with 0.28mm dot pitch . Decently sharp at 1024x768, better at 800x600 .
c) Daewoo CMC-1502B1 . This was definitely the dimmest so far, straight from the factory . Still decently sharp all around
d) Viewsonic PT771 Nice and bright, OK geometry, not so great convergence and, over time, unfixably bad focus . Was nice when new .
e) Viewsonic P95F Very good on all fronts (though not perfect) except for its weight and size . (gave it to my mother who used it for a while and then found it a new home)

Then, I got my first LCD, a Samsung 204B . It has a 1600x1200 TN panel with an 800:1 contrast ratio, some backlight bleed, but like all TN LCD panels, it has perfect geometry, perfect convergence and perfect focus (concept does not apply to an LCD, but you know what I mean) . I was hooked . Since then, I've own multiple VA and IPS monitors, all much better than the 204B and I have never regretted not having an analogue RGB CRT computer monitor (>31KHz)anymore .

I just don't feel that the 640x400 (double scanned 320x200) and higher resolutions on a relatively fine pitch CRT look all that special compared to an LCD with integer scaling (or nearly so) .

I do, however, feel that 15KHz interlaced CRT monitors do have a characteristic look that I am sensitive and do appreciate . I would probably let myself be convinced to buy one if I had enough vintage consoles that could benefit from it, as I only have an SNES, Atari 2600, PS2 and Retron 5 and I seriously doubt I could coax 200/240 line output out of the Retron 5 (or maybe I could with an HDMI to VGA converter and the OSSC, hmmm) . That is assuming I could find an affordable low-hour one ,

That's just my opinion .

EDIT: Corrected typo

Well... The biggest issue is not in the Dos/Win/Intel-world. In that segment, any monitor incompatibility or screen issues are dwarfed, by miles, by what issues there are in the C64 and Amiga world. Like you have so many cheap options for VGA, however going for a flatscreen for the Commodore64 are like darn near impossible, unless you have a converter like a RetroTink 2x. For an C64 I still use an old trusty 14 inch television. And for my Amiga's, I have setteled for internal scandoublers.

That said, I have 4 LCD monitors. They are all selected carefully on what needs that I have. As an example, I have a Samsung 17 inch 6:4 monitor, specially for Dynablaster. Because the other ones can not center the image. Then I have a Sony for the ScanPlusECS that are in one of my a500's, because 50hz looks butt-ugly on the other 3 monitors. I have a Dell and an IBM, because the dell can take 15khz signals and the IBM makes a beautifull picture with the IndivisionECS-V2 that are in my Amiga600 and my Amiga500-Desktop (homemade case converted a500).

On the PC front, I always choose a card that gives near none to no vertical lines on LCD monitors. That is cheaper to go, than to have even more monitors.

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-17, 06:02:

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 00:57:

When I say DOS, I mean pure DOS real mode (without Windows running) . The version is version 7.1 , as provided with Windows 98 S […]
Show full quote

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-16, 23:51:

Well... I will never use the cards I talk about on anything post Pentium1. Like. That is Windows territory and not Dos territory.
And when I say best for dos, and talk about PCI cards, then I am in reality referring to 486 or Pentium with PCI-Slot.

I need to ask you and to be clear. When you are saying Dos, do you mean Win9x included? That is not Dos, that is Windows.

When I say DOS, I mean pure DOS real mode (without Windows running) . The version is version 7.1 , as provided with Windows 98 SE . I don't even boot into Windows by default (I have set BootGUI=0 in MSDOS.SYS) . I obviously sometimes use Windows 98 SE as well .

For me, the reasons for not running DOS 6.22 , for example, are the following
a) I hate dual booting (I still need to run Windows 98 SE on the machine and Windows 98 SE runs best under its included DOS 7.1
b) Lack of FAT32 support
c) I use a drive greater than 8.4GB in size
d) I have found no compelling reason to use an older version of DOS . Everything I've tried so far runs fine under DOS 7.1

With the exception of early Sierra and LucasArts titles, I rarely go pre-VGA (before 1987). I have not yet had to face a situation where FAT32 won't work and if I ever do, I have the room for a FAT16 partition (or even a FAT12 one, if it comes to that).

I obviously use SETMUL to go down to 386-like speeds when necessary . If I need to go slower (not a common occurrence) , there are, of course, multiple slowdown utilities to choose from .

Why do I run everything from such a wide time period (1987 to 2001 approximately) on a single machine ?

Well, first, because I can and, second, because I just don't have room for a multitude of machines (386 and/or 486, Pentium 1) . I do also have a late vintage Windows XP machine, a Windows 7 dedicated one and a current Windows 10 one . The XP one is not even currently plugged in, because I mostly don't need it .

Current retro machine specs (always in a state of flux, as I love to tweak things) :
- Pentium 3 Tualatin-S @1400MHz with 512K L2 cache
- Ipox 3ETI23 industrial motherboard (815EP-based with 3 ISA slots and onboard Fast Ethernet)
- 512 MB (2x256) of PC133 SDRAM
- MSI AGP Nvidia FX 5900
- 3Dfx Voodoo 3 3000 (PCI)
- 500GB Samsung 860EVO using a JMD330 Serial ATA/IDE bridge (with 3 partitions, each smaller than 127GB)
- 5 and 1/4" floppy drive
- 3 and 1/2" floppy drive
- LG GSA-4167 DVD-ROM drive
- Gravis Ultrasound Ultralsound 3.73 with 1 MB RAM
- Creative AWE64 Value with 28MB RAM (thanks to SIMMCONN revival)
- Mediatrix Audiotrix 3DXG (OPL3SA) with Monster 3D 4MB GS (Dream 9733) daughterboard (for SB Pro compatibility and authentic embedded OPL3)
- Windows 98SE with big HDD patch
- MIDIMAN MIDISport 2x4 running in passive mode and with output 2 looped into input 2 (turning it into 1x3 midi splitter) connected to AWE64 via DB15 to MIDI cable
- first generation Roland MT32
- Roland SC-88VL
- Yamaha MU500
- Akai DPS12 multi-track recorder used as an audio mixer
- RCA brand 4x1 component AV switcher (not enough inputs on the DPS12)

EDIT: Oh, and if nobody noticed, I'm not into period-correctness . Form follows function .

Ahh... I see.
To me, calling Win9x Dos, is the same as calling Os/2 with Dos build in, as Dos. Dos and Win9x are two different operating systems. Same as Os/2 and Dos being two different operating systems. Both Os/2 and Win9x have Dos build in, yet they are called something else for a reason.

The comparison between Windows 9x and OS/2 does not really hold, on the DOS front, IMHO . OS/2 does not run under DOS, does not start from DOS, does not let you exit to DOS or run DOS standalone

The version of MS-DOS that is provided with Windows 98 SE (95 and 98 FE too) , whatever Microsoft,you, me or anyone may choose to call it,
a) can be run standalone (without loading the Windows kernel)
b) can be booted entirely from a floppy disk
c) supports all DOS APIs
d) allows direct access to BIOS function calls
e) allows direct hardware access
f) runs in real mode by default
g) can run DOS compatible memory managers
h) is compatible with all DOS extenders that can run under the previous standalone version of DOS (6.22)
i) Runs essentially all DOS compatible software that can run under the previous standalone version of DOS (6.22), the exception being certain low-level disk utilities (because of the addition of FAT32 and the support for drives larger than 8.4GB).

None of these are true for any DOS prompt that OS/2 can generate, AFAIK .

I will instead ask the question, if the version of DOS provided with Windows 9x is not
really DOS and callling it the Windows command line does not make sense because no Windows programs (GUI OR CLI) can actually run under it , then what is it ?

In my opinion, DOS 7.x and the corresponding version of Windows that it comes bundled with it are two products that were once separate and then Microsoft decided to sell as one package . One of them can run standalone and the other depends on the first. In that sense, they are no different than, for example, DOS 6.x and Windows 3.x .
The rest, again in my opinion, is semantics .

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-17, 06:20:

Well... The biggest issue is not in the Dos/Win/Intel-world. In that segment, any monitor incompatibility or screen issues are d […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 01:36:

I guess it is, to a point . I have used several CRT computer monitors . I remember them all . a ) TTX 14 inch display that topp […]
Show full quote

maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-06-17, 00:43:

that's sad

I'm all about using modern displays and scalers too, most of the time. But sometimes you just gotta break out the 21" VGA CRT and live the dream

I guess it is, to a point . I have used several CRT computer monitors . I remember them all .
a ) TTX 14 inch display that topped off at 1024x768 @87Hz interlaced with 0.28mm dot pitch (nice and sharp at 640x480 or below, OK at 800x600).
b) IBM branded monitor that came with PS/Valuepoint that topped off 1024x768@60Hz (maybe 70Hz) with 0.28mm dot pitch . Decently sharp at 1024x768, better at 800x600 .
c) Daewoo CMC-1502B1 . This was definitely the dimmest so far, straight from the factory . Still decently sharp all around
d) Viewsonic PT771 Nice and bright, OK geometry, not so great convergence and, over time, unfixably bad focus . Was nice when new .
e) Viewsonic P95F Very good on all fronts (though not perfect) except for its weight and size . (gave it to my mother who used it for a while and then found it a new home)

Then, I got my first LCD, a Samsung 204B . It has a 1600x1200 TN panel with an 800:1 contrast ratio, some backlight bleed, but like all TN LCD panels, it has perfect geometry, perfect convergence and perfect focus (concept does not apply to an LCD, but you know what I mean) . I was hooked . Since then, I've own multiple VA and IPS monitors, all much better than the 204B and I have never regretted not having an analogue RGB CRT computer monitor (>31KHz)anymore .

I just don't feel that the 640x400 (double scanned 320x200) and higher resolutions on a relatively fine pitch CRT look all that special compared to an LCD with integer scaling (or nearly so) .

I do, however, feel that 15KHz interlaced CRT monitors do have a characteristic look that I am sensitive and do appreciate . I would probably let myself be convinced to buy one if I had enough vintage consoles that could benefit from it, as I only have an SNES, Atari 2600, PS2 and Retron 5 and I seriously doubt I could coax 200/240 line output out of the Retron 5 (or maybe I could with an HDMI to VGA converter and the OSSC, hmmm) . That is assuming I could find an affordable low-hour one ,

That's just my opinion .

EDIT: Corrected typo

Well... The biggest issue is not in the Dos/Win/Intel-world. In that segment, any monitor incompatibility or screen issues are dwarfed, by miles, by what issues there are in the C64 and Amiga world. Like you have so many cheap options for VGA, however going for a flatscreen for the Commodore64 are like darn near impossible, unless you have a converter like a RetroTink 2x. For an C64 I still use an old trusty 14 inch television. And for my Amiga's, I have setteled for internal scandoublers.

That said, I have 4 LCD monitors. They are all selected carefully on what needs that I have. As an example, I have a Samsung 17 inch 6:4 monitor, specially for Dynablaster. Because the other ones can not center the image. Then I have a Sony for the ScanPlusECS that are in one of my a500's, because 50hz looks butt-ugly on the other 3 monitors. I have a Dell and an IBM, because the dell can take 15khz signals and the IBM makes a beautifull picture with the IndivisionECS-V2 that are in my Amiga600 and my Amiga500-Desktop (homemade case converted a500).

On the PC front, I always choose a card that gives near none to no vertical lines on LCD monitors. That is cheaper to go, than to have even more monitors.

I agree it is difficult to run old 15KHz computers and consoles on modern displays. Thankfully, there are scan converters. I just happen to like the aesthetic of a 15KHz analogue RGB monitor .

My current retro monitor setup is in a state of flux.
I currently use a 1920x1200 70Hz capable monitor with a Voodoo 3 and OSSC and am waiting on a 70Hz capable scaler to arrive to allow correct 4:3 aspect ratio on my monitor (it stretches modes that do not fit its criteria of 4:3).
The Geforce FX 5900 has been convinced to run 1600x1200 70Hz under DOS using an EDID emulator, but Nvidia's scaling is rather soft .
There is a thread about the EDID emulator use and one where I talk about my planned scaler setup .

This is interesting, but I think we are hijacking the thread ever so slightly . To get back to it, if I had a TNT2 with DVI, I would test it to see if I can get 70Hz out of it under DOS (not likely to work on such an old card).

EDIT: As for the vertical lines on LCDs that you mention (I have heard of them on some Trident cards, among others), I wonder if running through an OSSC, even in passthrough mode, would fix the issue .

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:14:

To get back to it, if I had a TNT2 with DVI, I would test it to see if I can get 70Hz out of it under DOS (not likely to work on such an old card).

That would be a thing to investigate. I have seen other ports on TNT2 cards. As an example, I have two Compaq branded TNT2-Ultra's, that are passive cooled. They have this odd propriataery connector, as well as the standard 15-pin one. Perhaps it is possible to get a DVI-Converter for that special connector.

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 07:53:

The comparison between Windows 9x and OS/2 does not really hold, on the DOS front, IMHO . OS/2 does not run under DOS, does not […]
Show full quote

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-17, 06:02:

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 00:57:

When I say DOS, I mean pure DOS real mode (without Windows running) . The version is version 7.1 , as provided with Windows 98 S […]
Show full quote

When I say DOS, I mean pure DOS real mode (without Windows running) . The version is version 7.1 , as provided with Windows 98 SE . I don't even boot into Windows by default (I have set BootGUI=0 in MSDOS.SYS) . I obviously sometimes use Windows 98 SE as well .

For me, the reasons for not running DOS 6.22 , for example, are the following
a) I hate dual booting (I still need to run Windows 98 SE on the machine and Windows 98 SE runs best under its included DOS 7.1
b) Lack of FAT32 support
c) I use a drive greater than 8.4GB in size
d) I have found no compelling reason to use an older version of DOS . Everything I've tried so far runs fine under DOS 7.1

With the exception of early Sierra and LucasArts titles, I rarely go pre-VGA (before 1987). I have not yet had to face a situation where FAT32 won't work and if I ever do, I have the room for a FAT16 partition (or even a FAT12 one, if it comes to that).

I obviously use SETMUL to go down to 386-like speeds when necessary . If I need to go slower (not a common occurrence) , there are, of course, multiple slowdown utilities to choose from .

Why do I run everything from such a wide time period (1987 to 2001 approximately) on a single machine ?

Well, first, because I can and, second, because I just don't have room for a multitude of machines (386 and/or 486, Pentium 1) . I do also have a late vintage Windows XP machine, a Windows 7 dedicated one and a current Windows 10 one . The XP one is not even currently plugged in, because I mostly don't need it .

Current retro machine specs (always in a state of flux, as I love to tweak things) :
- Pentium 3 Tualatin-S @1400MHz with 512K L2 cache
- Ipox 3ETI23 industrial motherboard (815EP-based with 3 ISA slots and onboard Fast Ethernet)
- 512 MB (2x256) of PC133 SDRAM
- MSI AGP Nvidia FX 5900
- 3Dfx Voodoo 3 3000 (PCI)
- 500GB Samsung 860EVO using a JMD330 Serial ATA/IDE bridge (with 3 partitions, each smaller than 127GB)
- 5 and 1/4" floppy drive
- 3 and 1/2" floppy drive
- LG GSA-4167 DVD-ROM drive
- Gravis Ultrasound Ultralsound 3.73 with 1 MB RAM
- Creative AWE64 Value with 28MB RAM (thanks to SIMMCONN revival)
- Mediatrix Audiotrix 3DXG (OPL3SA) with Monster 3D 4MB GS (Dream 9733) daughterboard (for SB Pro compatibility and authentic embedded OPL3)
- Windows 98SE with big HDD patch
- MIDIMAN MIDISport 2x4 running in passive mode and with output 2 looped into input 2 (turning it into 1x3 midi splitter) connected to AWE64 via DB15 to MIDI cable
- first generation Roland MT32
- Roland SC-88VL
- Yamaha MU500
- Akai DPS12 multi-track recorder used as an audio mixer
- RCA brand 4x1 component AV switcher (not enough inputs on the DPS12)

EDIT: Oh, and if nobody noticed, I'm not into period-correctness . Form follows function .

Ahh... I see.
To me, calling Win9x Dos, is the same as calling Os/2 with Dos build in, as Dos. Dos and Win9x are two different operating systems. Same as Os/2 and Dos being two different operating systems. Both Os/2 and Win9x have Dos build in, yet they are called something else for a reason.

The comparison between Windows 9x and OS/2 does not really hold, on the DOS front, IMHO . OS/2 does not run under DOS, does not start from DOS, does not let you exit to DOS or run DOS standalone

The version of MS-DOS that is provided with Windows 98 SE (95 and 98 FE too) , whatever Microsoft,you, me or anyone may choose to call it,
a) can be run standalone (without loading the Windows kernel)
b) can be booted entirely from a floppy disk
c) supports all DOS APIs
d) allows direct access to BIOS function calls
e) allows direct hardware access
f) runs in real mode by default
g) can run DOS compatible memory managers
h) is compatible with all DOS extenders that can run under the previous standalone version of DOS (6.22)
i) Runs essentially all DOS compatible software that can run under the previous standalone version of DOS (6.22), the exception being certain low-level disk utilities (because of the addition of FAT32 and the support for drives larger than 8.4GB).

None of these are true for any DOS prompt that OS/2 can generate, AFAIK .

I will instead ask the question, if the version of DOS provided with Windows 9x is not
really DOS and callling it the Windows command line does not make sense because no Windows programs (GUI OR CLI) can actually run under it , then what is it ?

In my opinion, DOS 7.x and the corresponding version of Windows that it comes bundled with it are two products that were once separate and then Microsoft decided to sell as one package . One of them can run standalone and the other depends on the first. In that sense, they are no different than, for example, DOS 6.x and Windows 3.x .
The rest, again in my opinion, is semantics .

I know that. Yet Win9x is not Dos, it is Win9x.

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:29:

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 07:53:

The comparison between Windows 9x and OS/2 does not really hold, on the DOS front, IMHO . OS/2 does not run under DOS, does not […]
Show full quote

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-17, 06:02:

Ahh... I see.
To me, calling Win9x Dos, is the same as calling Os/2 with Dos build in, as Dos. Dos and Win9x are two different operating systems. Same as Os/2 and Dos being two different operating systems. Both Os/2 and Win9x have Dos build in, yet they are called something else for a reason.

The comparison between Windows 9x and OS/2 does not really hold, on the DOS front, IMHO . OS/2 does not run under DOS, does not start from DOS, does not let you exit to DOS or run DOS standalone

The version of MS-DOS that is provided with Windows 98 SE (95 and 98 FE too) , whatever Microsoft,you, me or anyone may choose to call it,
a) can be run standalone (without loading the Windows kernel)
b) can be booted entirely from a floppy disk
c) supports all DOS APIs
d) allows direct access to BIOS function calls
e) allows direct hardware access
f) runs in real mode by default
g) can run DOS compatible memory managers
h) is compatible with all DOS extenders that can run under the previous standalone version of DOS (6.22)
i) Runs essentially all DOS compatible software that can run under the previous standalone version of DOS (6.22), the exception being certain low-level disk utilities (because of the addition of FAT32 and the support for drives larger than 8.4GB).

None of these are true for any DOS prompt that OS/2 can generate, AFAIK .

I will instead ask the question, if the version of DOS provided with Windows 9x is not
really DOS and callling it the Windows command line does not make sense because no Windows programs (GUI OR CLI) can actually run under it , then what is it ?

In my opinion, DOS 7.x and the corresponding version of Windows that it comes bundled with it are two products that were once separate and then Microsoft decided to sell as one package . One of them can run standalone and the other depends on the first. In that sense, they are no different than, for example, DOS 6.x and Windows 3.x .
The rest, again in my opinion, is semantics .

I know that. Yet Win9x is not Dos, it is Win9x.

On that point, we'll have to agree to disagree then, at least partially .

On a different note, I wonder what exactly causes the vertical lines on LCDs with certain old VGA cards and if running through an external digitizer like OSSC could fix the issue . AFAIK, there was never was an explanation for the issue in previous threads .

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:36:

On a different note, I wonder what exactly causes the vertical lines on LCDs with certain old VGA cards

Easy to explain. The monitor thinks it is a different refresh rate. Basically, the monitor is in a wrong setting.
You can fix it to some degree, by playing with clock-setting and phase-setting on the monitor.

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:44:

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:36:

On a different note, I wonder what exactly causes the vertical lines on LCDs with certain old VGA cards

Easy to explain. The monitor thinks it is a different refresh rate. Basically, the monitor is in a wrong setting.
You can fix it to some degree, by playing with clock-setting and phase-setting on the monitor.

Thanks. I had never seen that effect personally (don't have any affected cards). So, presumably, a fully configurable digitizer like on OSSC or some high end scalers, could be a fix for it . I wonder what causes the mis-detection. A "dirty" sync signal ?

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:51:

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:44:

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:36:

On a different note, I wonder what exactly causes the vertical lines on LCDs with certain old VGA cards

Easy to explain. The monitor thinks it is a different refresh rate. Basically, the monitor is in a wrong setting.
You can fix it to some degree, by playing with clock-setting and phase-setting on the monitor.

Thanks. I had never seen that effect personally (don't have any affected cards). So, presumably, a fully configurable digitizer like on OSSC or some high end scalers, could be a fix for it . I wonder what causes the mis-detection. A "dirty" sync signal ?

I think a scaler of that level (OSSC and RetrTink) are a good solution. They remove lines on most old consoles and computers. Just not on some old 8bit computers. As an example, the Commodere64 have one of the worst image quality output of all vintage computers. Sad, because the software library are so huge, and because it is perhaps the greatest of all 8bit computers to date. As far as I remember, the RetroTink is the absolute best solution for C64, if you do not have a CRT for it. If someone is starting out to collect 8, 16 and 32 bit computers and consoles, then I recommend then to buy both a RetroTink and an OSSC. Having both gives you a solid foundation for nearly all vintage consoles, PC's, Atari's and Commodore machines.

EDIT:
And not to mention.... If you are into buying, building and using 8bit replica computers or kit-computers. Like the Colour Maximite Basic Computer, PE6502 or Apple1 clones.

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 07:53:

The version of MS-DOS that is provided with Windows 98 SE (95 and 98 FE too) , whatever Microsoft,you, me or anyone may choose t […]
Show full quote

The version of MS-DOS that is provided with Windows 98 SE (95 and 98 FE too) , whatever Microsoft,you, me or anyone may choose to call it,
a) can be run standalone (without loading the Windows kernel)
b) can be booted entirely from a floppy disk
c) supports all DOS APIs
d) allows direct access to BIOS function calls
e) allows direct hardware access
f) runs in real mode by default
g) can run DOS compatible memory managers
h) is compatible with all DOS extenders that can run under the previous standalone version of DOS (6.22)
i) Runs essentially all DOS compatible software that can run under the previous standalone version of DOS (6.22), the exception being certain low-level disk utilities (because of the addition of FAT32 and the support for drives larger than 8.4GB).

All of that is true, except the part "Win9X runs under DOS". Win9X uses DOS as :
a) a bootloader
b) a compat layer (all of the above is thanks to that)

But other than that, it's very much like in Windows 3.X but extended since then :

Upon boot, it takes reign of the machine (that's why sometimes you STILL have to use the real thing for some games, because Windows does a lot to 'hide' itself but it cannot be perfect) with its own pre-emptive kernel (pre-emptive for Win32, cooperative for Win16/DOS stuff) that runs in protected mode, its own flat memory model (bye bye conventional memory, high mem, xms/ems and stuff), along with its own set of drivers and a lot of (incompatible with DOS) Win32 apps that all use its new API.

So overall :
"It's complicated."
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20 … 224-00/?p=24063

One thing about the Voodoo3 vs TNT2 debate was the fact their was no high end TNT2 card for the PCI bus, with 3DFX you had the 3000 PCI and if a PCI slot was all you had their was no other option, 3DFX was a no brainer.

Thats why I bought a 3000 back in the day, being a teenager and whatever cheap PC CHIPS motherboard(M747) machine my parents bought, still provided a good gaming experience.