I'm like you, I like to build hybrid machines. As you say, new ATX cases are good looking and easy to work with. Modern ATX power supplies are quiet and stable and CF cards are also silent and a joy to work with.

I also prefer an optical mouse and a LCD screen over CRT.

I do have a real Acer 486 machine, but I prefer my hybrid time machine Super Socket 7 machine because it's a lot more flexible.

It's very much a personal preference thing. If you want to do it go ahead and do it.
I wouldn't say its really 'important' per se. But I like to do it when I can 😀

Building period correct machines takes much more time, money and effort comparatively. You've got to look for the right old parts, and they also have to be in good shape so that you avoid instability and other aggravation. I try to stay as correct as I can, i.e. using the correct cpu, motherboard and video card but am not to fussy about ancillariy parts like psus and cases. New cases especially tend to be much better. And you can get a side window to show off your cool Golden Orb and V2 SLI combination.

And building period specific machines also tie down with the same limitations existed during that period.

For convenience and efficiency, it's much more preferable to build old systems with current peripherals.

For e.g. - as everyone has mentioned,

1. Using an LCD saves desk space, produces less heat and free from flickers, and there is no need to tinker with refresh rates other than enabling v-sync in windows games for smooth graphics scrolling.

2. A PS/2 optical mouse is better - easily available, no need to regularly clean the ball and bearing roll-pins, and less mechanical moving parts, may translate to easy maintenance.

3. With RAMs becoming so affordable, it's nice to flesh out the once dream machine we had (but was never able to upgrade more than how it was last time due to costs,) with more than enough RAMs into it.

4. Graphics and Sound Cards are preferred to be maintained period-specific, especially for eg., games that support only Voodoo1 or games supporting only Glide, DOS systems with ISA sound cards, games that make use of the AWE ports, etc.

Other than that, it's all personal preference.

It is nice to have a period specific components, like a serial mouse, CRT, AT-keyboard, etc, however. Just for that "authentic" feel. (Provided all the components are taken care of well - these are harder to replace.)

It pays to build from the ground-up keeping in mind the current techs - like looking for a 486-mobo with a PS/2 mouse connector pins built-in and so on.

Period specific I suppose could provide guarantee of a level of compatibility. However, personally, I only spring for period specific with external components as styles change and I want everything that's visible on the outside to match and look nice.

I try to be period specific when it's practical. I have a Pentium 133MHz with 16MB ram, 850MB hard drive and a 2MB S3 Virge DX. By contrast I also have a Pentium 3 650MHz with 384MB of RAM and 2x 80GB HDDs.

Malik wrote:

1. Using an LCD [...] produces less heat

Compared with a 1995 CRT, yes.

And LCD panels do flicker: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/inversion.php

As I've said before: game programmers, as far as I know, never targeted their work towards a single, particular architecture, so going to great lengths to obtain a hardware configuration specific to a particular era will do nothing to bring your gaming experience closer to the author's original vision.

Best to stick with whatever works.

Year-specific builds are fun I'm sure if you're interested enough, but they won't reflect what the average PC user or gamer had in that year, nor necessarily what the average game being released then was being aimed at.

I think some of us have an idea of how we want a game or set of games to play and sound, and that drives the hardware decisions. For some it's about perfection, for others it's about wide compatibility, or just plain hot-rodding.

Of course there are broad correlations between hardware and games, but they aren't very year-specific afaik.

Sometimes I like to think about how a game might have played on the hardware it was designed for or aimed at, perhaps how it would have been for a typical user way back. But not very often.

I'm crazy about periods. My 486 only has software as new as 1997. But this is hard to do since older video drivers for older video hardware are harder to find

leileilol wrote:

I'm crazy about periods.

But seriously, i'm not a fan. My computer systems tend to be "best in socket" style systems with a appropriate video card.

I have a best socket 7, slot 1, slot 2, socket 8, socket 370, socket a, slot a..... and thats the way I like it.

Seems to me - things like CPUs and video cards - are solid state, not a lot can go wrong. They are as good used as new (unless they have been abused). I am less keen on used drives, especially optical drives.

Building a period specific machine is not that important to me. I want games to look, sound and feel like I used to play them on my 486 about 15 years ago. But at the same time, I want them to run as fast and smooth as possible, which a 486 can not do. So I use a Pentium 2 with a much older monitor, soundcard, and keyboard.

Well - in my experience the game "minimum system requirements" almost always do not work well. Example - Unreal would ruin on a 233, but so much better at 500 MHz on a k6-2 or P3. Unreal 2 would supposedly run on a 700 MHz P3, but my experience was it was still almost unplayable on a 1000 MHz P3. I didn't get it to play well until I got an Athlon XP 2400+. So, I agree with you.

Interesting thread! I just started another thread about monitor size for the relevant period - I should have just replied to this.

Anyway I really like the idea of having everything authentic for a period and enjoy the challenge of tracking down the bits, but there's a limit to how much I'll spend on them and how long I can defer gratification.

At the end of the day it's more about the setup looking the part for me, so if I have to use a din to ps2 converter then so be it, I can't see that anyway.

Jorpho wrote:

As I've said before: game programmers, as far as I know, never targeted their work towards a single, particular architecture, so going to great lengths to obtain a hardware configuration specific to a particular era will do nothing to bring your gaming experience closer to the author's original vision.

Best to stick with whatever works.

Amen.

Yes, personally i stick to period specifics as long as to guarantee compatibility and authenticity of gameplay, but i dont really feel the need to go further.
I value playing a said game on a 486, but i dont give a damn if it has a 20 gb HDD, a 52X CD-RW and a 17" Screen. Its still a 486...