dionb wrote on 2024-08-01, 22:18:

That is one impressive card!

It reminds me of the Bitchin’ fast 3D 2000, which is a card you definitely should pick up if you find one!

What is this...THING?! o_o ("BitchinFast 3D 2000")

You can always dual boot 2k for when you need USB/Fat32 and NT4 for when you don't!

douglar wrote on 2024-08-01, 23:33:

It reminds me of the Bitchin’ fast 3D 2000, which is a card you definitely should pick up if you find one! […]
Show full quote

dionb wrote on 2024-08-01, 22:18:

That is one impressive card!

It reminds me of the Bitchin’ fast 3D 2000, which is a card you definitely should pick up if you find one!

The attachment IMG_2770.png is no longer available

The attachment IMG_2771.png is no longer available

What is this...THING?! o_o ("BitchinFast 3D 2000")

I passed one up in a thrift store a few years back, they'd put it in the sports equipment rack because it was so long, and someone just mashed a number two wood down on it, head first and cracked it across the board about 1/4 way up from mounting plate. I thought it was overpriced at $12.99 anyway. 😉

willmurray461 wrote on 2024-08-01, 13:27:

OK so I might have made a stupid impulse buy, but I ended up getting one of those "big-ass workstation OpenGL cards." It's a Dynamic Pictures Oxygen 402, a quad-chip professional card from 1997. It ended up costing around what a Voodoo 3 would have, but it looked too cool for me to pass up. The problem now is the fact that the card only has drivers for NT 4.0 and not 2000, so I'll have to install 3rd party software if I want to get FAT32 and USB. Either way though, NT 4.0 is probably more appropriate for a Pentium Pro. Anyone here ever use one of these?

As dionb points out, you can install NT 4.0 drivers under W2K, though DirectX acceleration is not supported...https://web.archive.org/web/20030203111714id_ … 0_Guide.htm#102

There's also a basic 2D driver set for W95 (no OpenGL or Direct3D support)...https://web.archive.org/web/20030325133934id_ … nt/win95v11.exe

dionb wrote on 2024-08-01, 22:18:

Supposedly, NT4 video drivers will frequently work under Win2k. No idea if that also applies to a beast as complex as this, but it's worth a try. Otherwise, I'd suggest moving the 'bridge system' use case to a different computer, as NT4 and USB really is very limited.

Someone here very vaguely mentions that the drivers work under Windows 2000, so I'll probably give it a shot. However, I remember reading elsewhere that NT 4.0 drivers can't be used with 2000 without hacking some configuration files. Do you have any experience with using NT drivers on 2000?

dionb wrote on 2024-08-01, 22:18:

Otherwise, I'd suggest moving the 'bridge system' use case to a different computer, as NT4 and USB really is very limited.

USB keyboards, mice, storage devices and webcams work with the IONetworks stack. Is this very limited?

PC Hoarder Patrol wrote on 2024-08-02, 02:41:

As dionb points out, you can install NT 4.0 drivers under W2K, though DirectX acceleration is not supported...https://web.archive.org/web/20030203111714id_ … 0_Guide.htm#102

Wow this looks really helpful. Assuming this works, I'll probably go with 2000 then. Does anyone here have experience with Pentium Pro's running 2000? Is it slow, or are they fast enough?

Win 2k adds significant amount of overhead compared to nt4.
Your hardware will run with nt4 and walk with 2k.
If you care about usb and stuff go with 2k, otherwise stay on nt4.

You indicated embedded C dev above.
Nt4+sp6 with vs6 needs mere 16 mb of ram. The rest is yours.

willmurray461 wrote on 2024-08-02, 14:04:

Wow this looks really helpful. Assuming this works, I'll probably go with 2000 then. Does anyone here have experience with Pentium Pro's running 2000? Is it slow, or are they fast enough?

I think the Windows 2000 release notes said 133 Pentium minimum, but 300 Mhz Pentium II recommended. I never ran it on anything slower than a 400Mhz PII.

Those $12,000 dual PPro workstations that I deployed were impressive computers with massive power supplies, motherboards, SCSI, proprietary upgradable nic modules, etc, but every feature they had was crawling with quirks. They arrived on the loading dock the week that the Klamath 300Mhz was released, so they were all pretty much outdated before they were even unboxed. All were scrapped long before the Windows 2000 rollout happened.

willmurray461 wrote on 2024-08-02, 13:59:

[...]

Someone here very vaguely mentions that the drivers work under Windows 2000, so I'll probably give it a shot. However, I remember reading elsewhere that NT 4.0 drivers can't be used with 2000 without hacking some configuration files. Do you have any experience with using NT drivers on 2000?

Afraid not personally, no. I generally try to run hardware more modern than OS, or at least contemporary to it, to get smoothest experience, so my Win2k boxes have 2000 era hardware, which has WinNT drivers, but also native 2k ones. Must say that I have been fishing for cards similar to yours for a while, but as it's purely for looks and fun I'm not prepared to spend as much on them as on a Voodoo3 (or rather: I'm prepared to spend exactly the same amount on them, as I got hold of my V3-3000PCI for EUR 45 for the card plus otherwise not particularly system it was in - which even a few years back was a very nice price) so haven't found one I wanted to pounce on yet.

I'd suggest following the link PC Hoarder Patrol posted.

GemCookie wrote on 2024-08-02, 14:03:

[...]

USB keyboards, mice, storage devices and webcams work with the IONetworks stack. Is this very limited?

When I see requirements like: "I also want a machine to hook up to my old IC programmers " I'd suggest that it might be - still worth a try, but not something I'd automatically assume works.

pshipkov wrote on 2024-08-02, 14:21:

Win 2k adds significant amount of overhead compared to nt4.
Your hardware will run with nt4 and walk with 2k.
If you care about usb and stuff go with 2k, otherwise stay on nt4.

Win2k adds a big RAM overhead compared to NT4, so if you're stuck around 64MB I'd say NT4 would be a much better idea. But OP has 512MB, which is more than enough for NT, 2k or even XP.

CPU overhead also increases, but this is an SMP system - even if the system is completely tying down one CPU, you still have a second one. I've not yet seen a benchmark that adequately quantifies this influence, but I've run WinXP on a P2B-DS with dual P2 400 and was amazed how much more responsive it was than my main system at the time, which was a Duron 750. A dual PPro Win2k system isn't going to win any speed awards, but I'd happily take it over a single P2.

You indicated embedded C dev above.
Nt4+sp6 with vs6 needs mere 16 mb of ram. The rest is yours.

This system has 512MB. Win2k needs 64MB, the rest is yours. That means you still have 448MB to play around with for C. Even in 2024, that's vastly more than most embedded systems.

All of that said: I still think that it would be better to run NT on this system and use something more modern for the 'bridge' role, but that's more an aesthetical opinion (combined with USB stuff), not because I doubt Win2k will run acceptably on this system. It will.

dionb wrote on 2024-08-02, 21:28:

When I see requirements like: "I also want a machine to hook up to my old IC programmers " I'd suggest that it might be - still worth a try, but not something I'd automatically assume works.

Win2k adds a big RAM overhead compared to NT4, so if you're stuck around 64MB I'd say NT4 would be a much better idea. But OP has 512MB, which is more than enough for NT, 2k or even XP.

I might as well clarify that my IC programmer uses the parallel port, not USB. I only want USB for reading flash drives.

I was also hoping the abundance of RAM would make up for the dated processor. I hope you're right and it's enough to make 2000 smooth. If not though, I could always run NT 4.

Wow, i must really be losing my touch if it took 3 days for me to find this thread.

2000 will run just fine on 2 chips and 512mb of ram.

NT4 will fly like a bat out of hell.

LGR did a video very recently about his experience with getting a dual ppro system going with NT4. its a highly accurate video. You should only pick NT4 if you are well versed in its idiosyncrasies, or you are a masochist.

luckybob wrote on 2024-08-03, 04:00:

Wow, i must really be losing my touch if it took 3 days for me to find this thread.

Get a grip already. We were about to call your mom. : )

I use to work in computer education classrooms back in 1990’s. We use to run WinNT 4.0 Server and Workstation on Pentium 90mhz and 100mhz computers.
No Problems. We would perform Network installs over the 10-base-T Ethernet network and install 30 computers at a time with Hard drive images. Some times we would install 60 computers at a time. It took about 10 minutes to install 30 computers with Windows NT 4.0 loaded with programs too.
We use to teach all kinds of programs too.
Never had any problems. Very Stable and reliable computers and operating system.
It was very cool watching all the computers complete the install and reboot together only to play the WinNT Start up sound together.
It was so loud and filled the hall ways with this sound.
So cool.
https://youtu.be/TXW2mP6BQk8?si=eGHU-dROaSvUNcIn

Our computer Specs where:
Pentium 90 or 100
32mb RAM
1gb or 2gb Hard drives probably Seagate or WD 5400rpm drives.
10-base-T Network cards
Basic SVGA 1mb Video cards

I would say a Pentium 100mhz is good enough for WinNT 4.0
Get a 7200rpm hard drive or CF card or SSD.

When installed correctly on a good working computer WinNT 4.0 is a Very Stable and Reliable operating System.

I used an HP Vectra mini tower computer at work and I think it had a Matrox Millennium graphics card running WinNT 3.5.1 workstation.

pshipkov wrote on 2024-08-02, 14:21:

Win 2k adds significant amount of overhead compared to nt4. Your hardware will run with nt4 and walk with 2k. If you care about […]
Show full quote

Win 2k adds significant amount of overhead compared to nt4.
Your hardware will run with nt4 and walk with 2k.
If you care about usb and stuff go with 2k, otherwise stay on nt4.

You indicated embedded C dev above.
Nt4+sp6 with vs6 needs mere 16 mb of ram. The rest is yours.

I disagree. With a minimum of 256MB of RAM I can't distinguish any meaningful difference in performance between NT4 and NT5 on a ppro @200-233

As long as you have enough ram, Windows 2000 won't be sluggish on a Pentium Pro.

@maxtherabbit
That's ok.
We are all shaped by past trauma and quick to project it onto others in such threads.
Let's see ...
The gaming crowd, nicely characterized by leileilol's "3dFx VooDoo BEST" - cracked me up.
The school IT guy thinking about mass support of machines abused by kids.
The home computing enthusiast concerned about drivers and gadgets compatibility.
Then someone who came from a place where no amount of computing resources are ever enough.

For that last case, an OS+devenv taking 16Mb of RAM, well up to let's say 30Mb with stood-up debugger + symbols loaded makes a big difference compared to another OS doing the same but taking ~80Mb+. I know. Totally irrelevant and silly angle, but is a thing for me. Sorry.