gerwin wrote on 2024-01-26, 19:32:

I agree about the Atom situation, as it was back then. It was a nice idea, but they never got it right in the Windows XP driver […]
Show full quote

386SX wrote on 2024-01-26, 19:07:

Imho the problem for Intel was most probably the lack of a time updated own GPU which let the early Atoms totally alone without a better GPU acceleration even for the new 2D GUIs before 3D gaming. Also if I remember correctly some SGX version didn't even have the old style 2D acceleration but more oriented to OpenGL ES smartphone UI. But the later Atom cut power demands quite a lot while the old GMA + southbridge platforms required much more power than the CPU itself, it was really pointless to put that in any mobile devices.

The E-350 went too far with its Radeon iGPU and with a very weak CPU anyway that is strangely too slow, maybe for the lack of SSE4 instructions but as an out of order architecture some was expecting more. The fan noise in my brand new ITX industrial config is something impossible to even accept. It was too slow for any notebook like platforms and too power demanding for a netbook/smartphone like device.

I agree about the Atom situation, as it was back then. It was a nice idea, but they never got it right in the Windows XP driver era. After that I lost interest. Though in some limited use-cases these Atoms were fine anyways.

As for the E-350. The CPU is weak compared to the Graphics indeed. But it is a nice hobby box for some open-source game projects, which expect a certain OpenGL-version and the power to actually use it. I also found it working well as a SNES emulator. Besides, connecting it to a TV with 1920x1080 screen already puts some demands on the GPU.
That fan noise, would it be fair to hold against the E-350 in general? It is actually the system designer at fault. Surely a system can be designed to dissipate the heat reasonably. Or maybe it is because of BIOS and/or OS power-saving support?
Passive PCIe cards of the similar Radeon HD 6450 were sold. I must admit that these could get too hot when used in ITX-sized PC cases. ( NVidia GT 710 remains cooler, and is faster. GT 710 is three years more modern, but still supports Windows XP as well. )

Of course the E-350 wasn't really bad just went too far for what it should have been sold for as an Atom alternative. If Intel didn't have the right GPU, AMD probably didn't have the right CPU.

Minutemanqvs wrote on 2024-01-25, 17:56:

What about a HP 2133 for a small C7 based system?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_2133_Mini-Note_PC

I have one. Despite it is very good in theory, in practice it isn't.
The main problem is that despite the stated compatibility of VIA Chrome9HC with Windows 9X in the drivers of later VIA chips, such as the CN896 or VX700, in practice these drivers do not work in Windows 9x anywhere, perhaps except on VIA motherboards itself.
I assume that this problem can be solved by modifying BIOSes or drivers, but I do not have sufficient skills to do this. Perhaps some of the enthusiasts could.
Second problem is an integrated VIA HD Audio which isn't supported in Windows 9x.

I experimented a bit with thin clients to check wether they are suitable for compact Win 98 machines.
@Kruton is correct when he states that the later VIA chipsets for the C7 are not really suited for Windows 98. The graphics driver is more trouble than anything and there are no drivers for the HD sound.
Most thin clients come without a PCI slot and some have just a single one. So you either adress the graphics problem with a PCI card and tackle the sound via USB sound card or you install a sound card like the Solo-1 and try to live with the problem-ladden internal graphic.
If you can settle for lower horse power, you can shoot for an older samuel II 533 or similar and an older chipset like PLE133, which has Soundblaster compatible audio hardware and a Trident Blade3D-type hardware integrated.
Speed-wise you are then in Pentium 233MMX territory, but with a smaller footprint. Of course, your upgrade options are then severily limited.