wrote:the et6100 is not the most compatible card for dos (vga or vesa) 😀
I know, it's my choice. I can choose from S3, Cirrus Logic, Western Digital/ Paradise as well. In fact, I can build 4 VGA cores - two PCI and 2 ISA if I wanted to, and do have another Socket 7 De-turbo build along those lines with an assortment of sound cards, too...
wrote:...
It is easier to slow something down rather than speed something up. The 486 was released late 80s, and DOS games and systems were released well beyond that time frame.
Newer 486s were released through 1994*, and naturally they're fine for most all of the newer games up until then as well. Also, VLB didn't come out until I think 1992.
If someone is wanting to arbitrarily limit themselves to ISA and first run 486s, more power to them, but this is an option, not a limitation of the platform.
*Edit: Apparently 1995, counting AMD, though for more of the newer games by then, it is probably starting to show more of the limitations of the platform in general.
wrote:wrote:wrote:...
It is easier to slow something down rather than speed something up. The 486 was released late 80s, and DOS games and systems were released well beyond that time frame.
Newer 486s were released through 1994, and naturally they're fine for most all of the newer games up until then as well. Also, VLB didn't come out until I think 1992.
If someone is wanting to arbitrarily limit themselves to ISA and first run 486s, more power to them, but this is an option, not a limitation of the platform.
Yeah, I understand being 'fine' for 'most', but this is an 'ultimate' thread and we're not taking arbitrary when it comes to the OPs question.
wrote:Yeah, I understand being 'fine' for 'most', but this is an 'ultimate' thread and we're not taking arbitrary when it comes to the OPs question.
I'm not arguing semantics regarding "fine" or "ultimate;" I'm saying that what you wrote there is inaccurate and very misleading if taken at face value. Just saying. Maybe you accidentally worded it poorly.
It's cool if you prefer to use something else and whatnot, but don't needlessly sell a very capable (for the time) platform so short. It's not doing anyone any good.
wrote:wrote:Yeah, I understand being 'fine' for 'most', but this is an 'ultimate' thread and we're not taking arbitrary when it comes to the OPs question.
I'm not arguing semantics regarding "fine" or "ultimate;" I'm saying that what you wrote there is inaccurate and very misleading if taken at face value. Just saying. Maybe you accidentally worded it poorly.
It's cool if you prefer to use something else and whatnot, but don't needlessly sell a very capable (for the time) platform so short. It's not doing anyone any good.
I'm not here to mislead nor be inaccurate. Nor is it really a preference. There are limitations to 486 builds. The OPs question is very specific. A 486 build is a subset of builds from certain Socket 7 ones. Meaning: I could build what relevant DOS functionality a 486 build provides and more from a Socket 7 build - hence the 'ultimate' build.
wrote:wrote:wrote:Yeah, I understand being 'fine' for 'most', but this is an 'ultimate' thread and we're not taking arbitrary when it comes to the OPs question.
I'm not arguing semantics regarding "fine" or "ultimate;" I'm saying that what you wrote there is inaccurate and very misleading if taken at face value. Just saying. Maybe you accidentally worded it poorly.
It's cool if you prefer to use something else and whatnot, but don't needlessly sell a very capable (for the time) platform so short. It's not doing anyone any good.
I'm not here to mislead nor be inaccurate. Nor is it really a preference. There are limitations to 486 builds. The OPs question is very specific. A 486 build is a subset of builds from certain Socket 7 ones. Meaning: I could build what relevant DOS functionality a 486 build provides and more from a Socket 7 build - hence the 'ultimate' build.
Right, that's not what I was taking issue with. Just the part I quoted. Oh well. Probably a moot point either way and no need to fuss about it.
Cheers, and a pretty cool setup there. 😎
Newer 486s were released through 1994*, and naturally they're fine for most all of the newer games up until then as well
They were "fine" by the standards of that time, which considered 10-15 fps to be fine and dandy. Right now it's unacceptable, especially with much better options at hand.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
wrote:Newer 486s were released through 1994*, and naturally they're fine for most all of the newer games up until then as well
They were "fine" by the standards of that time, which considered 10-15 fps to be fine and dandy. Right now it's unacceptable, especially with much better options at hand.
Many games ran up to a max FPS regardless of cpu speed, if they ran “faster” the games were too fast.
As an example Spider-Man from Windows 95 was designed to run like a slideshow regardless of cpu speed
wrote:Newer 486s were released through 1994*, and naturally they're fine for most all of the newer games up until then as well. Also, VLB didn't come out until I think 1992.
If someone is wanting to arbitrarily limit themselves to ISA and first run 486s, more power to them, but this is an option, not a limitation of the platform.
*Edit: Apparently 1995, counting AMD, though for more of the newer games by then, it is probably starting to show more of the limitations of the platform in general.
I have a 486 made in 1996 that has a motherboard also manufactured in 1996. I doubt it is the latest so I think they were made much later than people think.
wrote:Newer 486s were released through 1994*, and naturally they're fine for most all of the newer games up until then as well
They were "fine" by the standards of that time, which considered 10-15 fps to be fine and dandy. Right now it's unacceptable, especially with much better options at hand.
That's not what I meant though. Keep in mind I said most, not all. What's the FPS cap for Doom again? Pretty sure you can hit that with a decent latter end 486s and video card. That didn't come out until December of '93, and was one of the more demanding games of the time. Point being, it didn't come out in '89, same as most of the 486s that didn't come out then either – that's just when the platform was first introduced. Big difference there. We're talking like a 5+ fold difference in performance potential over the life of the platform. It can cover a lot (though admittedly not quite all) of the bases for people to get their DOS gaming on.
wrote:wrote:Newer 486s were released through 1994*, and naturally they're fine for most all of the newer games up until then as well. Also, VLB didn't come out until I think 1992.
If someone is wanting to arbitrarily limit themselves to ISA and first run 486s, more power to them, but this is an option, not a limitation of the platform.
*Edit: Apparently 1995, counting AMD, though for more of the newer games by then, it is probably starting to show more of the limitations of the platform in general.
I have a 486 made in 1996 that has a motherboard also manufactured in 1996. I doubt it is the latest so I think they were made much later than people think.
I was meaning when the specific types of CPUs were first released, but either way you may be right, and it might indeed be later then 1995. I'm not as familiar with the AMD CPUs, nor other variants, for that matter – why I ended up tacking on that edit at the end there.
Cheers.
Pretty sure you can hit that with a decent latter end 486s and video card.
The cap is 35 fps. DX2 achieves 30-35 fps with a fast videocard on some simple and small maps. But roll out something like Doom 2 map 13 "Downtown" on Ultra-violence and it's a mess already.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
wrote:Newer 486s were released through 1994*, and naturally they're fine for most all of the newer games up until then as well. Also, […]
wrote:...
It is easier to slow something down rather than speed something up. The 486 was released late 80s, and DOS games and systems were released well beyond that time frame.
Newer 486s were released through 1994*, and naturally they're fine for most all of the newer games up until then as well. Also, VLB didn't come out until I think 1992.
If someone is wanting to arbitrarily limit themselves to ISA and first run 486s, more power to them, but this is an option, not a limitation of the platform.
*Edit: Apparently 1995, counting AMD, though for more of the newer games by then, it is probably starting to show more of the limitations of the platform in general.
The first vlb mainboards came out in the first part of 93, but the first cards and typical hybrid chipsets were much slower, than the late 94 models.
Dx2-66 end of 92 on the market
Dx4-100 released in 94, but it was very expensive (500 dollars), become popular in 95 with amd
Cyrix 5x86 end of 95
Amd 5x86 was popular in 96
