I'm not sure, but I suspect ME to be slower then 98SE, seeing as most of my SuperPi scores were a bit lower then those of other people's systems running 98SE. But that's nothing more then a suspicion.
This was with faster rigs however, I don't think ME would run really well on a P1 75 anyway (it seems to need more CPU cycles and a bit more RAM then 98SE).
The only way to find out for sure is to make multiple installs on a single motherboard, using different but identical harddrives if possible and then simply give it a go 😀

This little benchmarking project has now dragged on for weeks 😒

I'm just too busy. But I'm determined to finish it today. Just got to benchmark 2 games and update the graph.

But one thing I can tell you is that W98SE is really struggling on a Pentium. Just navigating folders, moving the mouse, unpacking stuff, installing games. It all takes a lot longer.

So I highly recommend W95 (the last one with FAT32) as OS. I couldn't get the USB storage to work, but everything else works fine.

Board is from DFI, Diamond Monster 3D and a Vortex 2 (Turtle Beach). Storage is a 2GB CF card because the work really well 😀

When it comes to comparing the speeds of systems, numbers are worth a thousand pictures!

feipoa wrote:

When it comes to comparing the speeds of systems, numbers are worth a thousand pictures!

There will be numbers of course 😀

Question about GLQuake: I disabled VSync through the VOODOO environmental variables, but the game seems to be stuck at 30 fps on a P200 and P166 (timedemo). Any ideas?

I'm probably not the right guy to ask this question.

Are you actually going to test GLQuake on a P100 using Win95 OSR2.x vs. that of Win98SE? If so, much appreciated!

No. W98SE is way too demanding for a Pentium.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

No. W98SE is way too demanding for a Pentium.

What?

I use Win98SE on all my Pentiums

Using it is very sluggish. Installing games takes longer. It can't quite handle it.

W95 is much snappier.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Using it is very sluggish. Installing games takes longer. It can't quite handle it.

W95 is much snappier.

If you're using it with 16mb of RAM (as you've done in the past for max compatibility) I can see why.

64MB. This isn't a MS-DOS built, but one for early 3D games like Forsaken, Incoming, Turok, GLQuake, Unreal...

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

way too demanding

That is what I was hoping to get some numbers for. That statement alone is too vague. A fresh installation of Win98SE with, say, 128 MB RAM, only to run some games might not be much slower than a Win95 OSR 2.x install. I'm hoping to quantify this with some benchmarks.

Vague for you maybe. I've done my testing and moved on, sorry. The "sluggishness" I refer to also can't be accurately measured. W98 just bogs everything down.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

This little benchmarking project has now dragged on for weeks :blah: […]
Show full quote

This little benchmarking project has now dragged on for weeks 😒

I'm just too busy. But I'm determined to finish it today. Just got to benchmark 2 games and update the graph.

But one thing I can tell you is that W98SE is really struggling on a Pentium. Just navigating folders, moving the mouse, unpacking stuff, installing games. It all takes a lot longer.

So I highly recommend W95 (the last one with FAT32) as OS. I couldn't get the USB storage to work, but everything else works fine.

Board is from DFI, Diamond Monster 3D and a Vortex 2 (Turtle Beach). Storage is a 2GB CF card because the work really well 😀

thats actually really interesting, back in the day I had a P166 (I think) machine with 32MB (later upgraded to 64MB), and it ran Win98se just fine , although that PC did start out with Win95 when it was first built in late 97, but overall I didn't notice much of a speed difference between the two, although in hindsight I would agree Win95 is the better option overall , almost no Pentium machines outside of the SS7 boards used USB and AGP.

(Im aware of the last revision of Win95, but I don't think that was sold in retail)

might struggle on a >90Mhz Pentium though

I can agree with 98SE being not optimal for a Pentium. On my 200 MMX it is a bit on the sluggish side. I even noticed some slight stutter when playing DOS games from 98SE which is not present when rebooting to DOS, and also not present when playing the games on a Pentium III from 98SE.

I always liked the speed of 95 but didn't really have anything to complain about with 98 except that it comes with almost no drivers preloaded. I have done win 2k and xp on P1 systems with acceptable results, there are so many little things that can make a big impact on performance.

Win98SE is fine on a Pentium, i've used it on a 100mhz, 150mhz and 166mhz without much performance issue. They all performed around the same to me.

cache modules definitely do help though

98 has its more complex shell.

But I only mess with 95 on 486-class hardware.

For what it is worth: Windows 98SE Winimize, with the Windows 95 shell transplant, is very responsive even on the slowest socket 7 processors. This is not useful for windows games at all, but it makes a great file manager and DJGPP programming environment, with USB mass storage access and such.

feipoa wrote:

Has anyone done an in depth comparison of Win9x-specific games for P75 - P166 rated machines to determine how many more frames can be squeezed out of the game? For example, if you are using a Pentium 100 and playing GLQuake, what frame rate do you get using Win95 vs. Win98 vs. WinME ?

I don't understand this. Why are you trying to squeeze out extra frames on a P75 - P166? Just get a Pentium II and get all the frames you want. If you're trying to "relive the experience" for some strange reason, then lower frame rates are just part of the experience, aren't they?