I think integrated video might be more the turning point of PC history - the GPU duopoly took hold when IGPs killed off the budget/office market. I'd divide the history of integration into three eras by motherboard design:

80s - Antikythera mechanism: Lots of discrete chips. Almost everything except the keyboard requires an expansion card.
90s/00s - 'retro': The northbridge and southbridge arrangement. Expansion slots giving way to the increasingly populated IO shield.
10s - modern: The CPU has swallowed everything. System on a chip. Mini-ITX cases with no expansion slots at all.

Big Pink wrote on 2021-02-06, 15:36:

I think integrated video might be more the turning point of PC history

My 1987 ITT 8088 has that.

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-02-06, 21:34:

Big Pink wrote on 2021-02-06, 15:36:

I think integrated video might be more the turning point of PC history

My 1987 ITT 8088 has that.

I think he meant chipset manufacturers on virtually every motherboard or in virtually every CPU. My AST Premium 486SX-20 also has one. A WD graphics chip with some dedicated video memory. An integrated graphics card to which you could buy an identical expansion card. I also had a socket7 board with a 2MB S3 Trio64 and video memory expansion sockets like on the expansion cards and now I have a HP Versa VE which has I think on on-board Matrox G200 with 4 or 8MB dedicated memory.

It's a little different than having an nForce, 945GC or 690G chipset with which the motherboard manufacturer don't need to pay for a third party solution if they want a graphics adaptor and the end user doesn't need to buy a graphics adaptor because there is already one in every PC.

Yes, I was talking about integrated graphics inside northbridges (eg. i810), and later CPUs when they in-turn integrated the functions of the northbridge. On-board graphics are where space is set aside on the motherboard for the relevant chips that would ordinarily be located on an expansion card - eg. the MSI MS-6168 has a 3Dfx Avenger chip below the northbridge and video memory where the AGP slot would normally be.

I like to draw the line based on CPU socket: up to and including Super Socket 7 (for the most part) there was a "mix and match" style approach, with a variety of CPU manufacturers and chipset suppliers, all working together "seamlessly". Post-SS7 we're left with just AMD and Intel, and the common socket diverges and becomes manufacturer- and CPU-specific.

It's pretty boring when your choice of motherboard ties you in to one specific manufacturer and one specific generation of CPU, and all the peripherals are integrated onboard anyways...

5-7 years ago, I used to draw the line at ISA slots. Any motherboard that had usable ISA slots was retro, even if the hardware used in it was less than 15 years old (at the time).

More recently, I added to that anything that could run Windows 9x with full driver support and that could properly support software from before the XP era.

I believe that not only age but also and maybe more importantly, function should be a criterion. In my book, the fact that you can run old software meant for DOS and Windows 9x on bare metal (as opposed to on a VM or through emulation) is currently a defining characteristic of a retro system. That means that a retro system can contain fairly new parts, as long as it can properly (with sound, with video and without glitches/shortcomings) run older software that does not run natively on current hardware/OS combinations .

I don't consider XP software to be really retro yet as
a) it has not been out of support/widescale use long enough
b) a lot (maybe most) of XP era software still works on current systems (this is debatable, of course and you could also say that even a lot of Windows 9x stuff can run on Windows 10)

P.S. I didn't explicitly mention Windows 3.x, as, IMHO, Windows 9x covers support for it .

darry wrote on 2021-02-07, 05:16:

In my book, the fact that you can run old software meant for DOS and Windows 9x on bare metal (as opposed to on a VM or through […]
Show full quote

In my book, the fact that you can run old software meant for DOS and Windows 9x on bare metal (as opposed to on a VM or through emulation) is currently a defining characteristic of a retro system. That means that a retro system can contain fairly new parts, as long as it can properly (with sound, with video and without glitches/shortcomings) run older software that does not run natively on current hardware/OS combinations .

I don't consider XP software to be really retro yet as
a) it has not been out of support/widescale use long enough
b) a lot (maybe most) of XP era software still works on current systems (this is debatable, of course and you could also say that even a lot of Windows 9x stuff can run on Windows 10)

Well yes, it's debatable. For example EAX. If you draw the line at compatibility, on anything newer than XP, EAX only can be emulated trough Alchemy, which either works or not and if works, it's either works well or not.

RandomStranger wrote on 2021-02-07, 06:46:

darry wrote on 2021-02-07, 05:16:

In my book, the fact that you can run old software meant for DOS and Windows 9x on bare metal (as opposed to on a VM or through […]
Show full quote

In my book, the fact that you can run old software meant for DOS and Windows 9x on bare metal (as opposed to on a VM or through emulation) is currently a defining characteristic of a retro system. That means that a retro system can contain fairly new parts, as long as it can properly (with sound, with video and without glitches/shortcomings) run older software that does not run natively on current hardware/OS combinations .

I don't consider XP software to be really retro yet as
a) it has not been out of support/widescale use long enough
b) a lot (maybe most) of XP era software still works on current systems (this is debatable, of course and you could also say that even a lot of Windows 9x stuff can run on Windows 10)

Well yes, it's debatable. For example EAX. If you draw the line at compatibility, on anything newer than XP, EAX only can be emulated trough Alchemy, which either works or not and if works, it's either works well or not.

Not strictly true. EAX via ds3d needs Alchemy, but via OpenAL it just requires compatible drivers which may include pure software implementations.

kolderman wrote on 2021-02-07, 07:01:

RandomStranger wrote on 2021-02-07, 06:46:

darry wrote on 2021-02-07, 05:16:

In my book, the fact that you can run old software meant for DOS and Windows 9x on bare metal (as opposed to on a VM or through […]
Show full quote

In my book, the fact that you can run old software meant for DOS and Windows 9x on bare metal (as opposed to on a VM or through emulation) is currently a defining characteristic of a retro system. That means that a retro system can contain fairly new parts, as long as it can properly (with sound, with video and without glitches/shortcomings) run older software that does not run natively on current hardware/OS combinations .

I don't consider XP software to be really retro yet as
a) it has not been out of support/widescale use long enough
b) a lot (maybe most) of XP era software still works on current systems (this is debatable, of course and you could also say that even a lot of Windows 9x stuff can run on Windows 10)

Well yes, it's debatable. For example EAX. If you draw the line at compatibility, on anything newer than XP, EAX only can be emulated trough Alchemy, which either works or not and if works, it's either works well or not.

Not strictly true. EAX via ds3d needs Alchemy, but via OpenAL it just requires compatible drivers which may include pure software implementations.

Just to be clear, according to my understanding, what Alchemy does is to essentially serve as wrapper between DS3D client apps and OpenAL, so I would not call it emulation.

As for EAX itself, AFAICR, there were software implementations even in XP's glory days. Though the word "emulation" is often used to describe those, I feel it may be a matter of perspective . After all, we don't typically feel compelled to call a software 3D engine an "emulation" of a hardware assisted one .

darry wrote on 2021-02-07, 07:38:

kolderman wrote on 2021-02-07, 07:01:

RandomStranger wrote on 2021-02-07, 06:46:

Well yes, it's debatable. For example EAX. If you draw the line at compatibility, on anything newer than XP, EAX only can be emulated trough Alchemy, which either works or not and if works, it's either works well or not.

Not strictly true. EAX via ds3d needs Alchemy, but via OpenAL it just requires compatible drivers which may include pure software implementations.

Just to be clear, according to my understanding, what Alchemy does is to essentially serve as wrapper between DS3D client apps and OpenAL, so I would not call it emulation.

That's correct, I was not trying to say it was emulation either. However it's a wrapper with limitations from what I understand, I never used it.

kolderman wrote on 2021-02-07, 19:22:

darry wrote on 2021-02-07, 07:38:

kolderman wrote on 2021-02-07, 07:01:

Not strictly true. EAX via ds3d needs Alchemy, but via OpenAL it just requires compatible drivers which may include pure software implementations.

Just to be clear, according to my understanding, what Alchemy does is to essentially serve as wrapper between DS3D client apps and OpenAL, so I would not call it emulation.

That's correct, I was not trying to say it was emulation either. However it's a wrapper with limitations from what I understand, I never used it.

Ack, thank you for that clarification . I did not mean to imply to you were saying it was emulation . I just wanted to make sure that I understood correctly .

Speaking of wrappers, I wonder how DSOAL compares to Alchemy . https://github.com/kcat/dsoal

darry wrote on 2021-02-07, 20:41:

kolderman wrote on 2021-02-07, 19:22:

darry wrote on 2021-02-07, 07:38:

Just to be clear, according to my understanding, what Alchemy does is to essentially serve as wrapper between DS3D client apps and OpenAL, so I would not call it emulation.

That's correct, I was not trying to say it was emulation either. However it's a wrapper with limitations from what I understand, I never used it.

Ack, thank you for that clarification . I did not mean to imply to you were saying it was emulation . I just wanted to make sure that I understood correctly .

Speaking of wrappers, I wonder how DSOAL compares to Alchemy . https://github.com/kcat/dsoal

I believe it is one of the ones that provides EAX emulation, only up to EAX3 or 4 though, not 5.

kolderman wrote on 2021-02-07, 21:46:

darry wrote on 2021-02-07, 20:41:

kolderman wrote on 2021-02-07, 19:22:

That's correct, I was not trying to say it was emulation either. However it's a wrapper with limitations from what I understand, I never used it.

Ack, thank you for that clarification . I did not mean to imply to you were saying it was emulation . I just wanted to make sure that I understood correctly .

Speaking of wrappers, I wonder how DSOAL compares to Alchemy . https://github.com/kcat/dsoal

I believe it is one of the ones that provides EAX emulation, only up to EAX3 or 4 though, not 5.

I wonder if it is possible to get it to talk to a hardware accelerated OpenAL implementation instead of OpenAL-soft .
AFAICT, trying that may be as easy as copying and renaming a dll file . Surely somebody has thought of trying this before. Either that or it's somehow obviously impossible and I just haven't been clued in to the obviousness of it yet .

386SX wrote on 2021-02-06, 13:35:

Not only with games but also with movies.

I hear you. I have a 36" Panasonic at my summer place because the picture is excellent and it survives the freezing winter temps without any issues year after year.

Funny how timely these things are - pulled out both of my primary "Modern" Linux boxes this weekend - a Lenovo T61 with a Core 2 Duo 2.1GHz and my "BeigeBeast" - a InWin D500 cased mATX desktop in classic off-white, and let me tell you, I'd still consider the Core 2 Duo modern - my "BeigeBeast" (the plastic of which could use a Retrobrite job) has an ATI Radeon in it, and that monster in Linux using....I think Proton Experimental in STEAM, has The Witcher Deluxe Edition (which I've read has a reputation of wanting higher end hardware) running better than it does on my newer Pentium U4300 Inspiron and I think possibly even the Core I7 NVIDIA equipped Latitude E6530 that are at least 3-4 years newer than the BeigeBeast - which is based off an Intel DQ45CB motherboard with a Core 2 Duo P8800 3.0Ghz. FNaF runs like it does on my i7 using Proton. So a Core 2 Duo is still quite a usable system in the modenr sense. Possibly the saving grace is I have a very powerful video card in there from 2017 or 2018 on the desktop, but the T61 has an NVIDIA accelerator in it as well.

They do some retro stuff though - both have DOSBox setup to run DOS executable in a window, both have WINE setup to run WIndows Executable like they are native. However, the finickyness of WINE makes that moot a lot of the time for all but the simplest applications. I'm still learning the ins-and-outs of Wine of course. I'm also working out a way to build out my retro-PC's with base images using VirtualBOX and then write those to the hard drives directly from Linux.

Anything that came before some arbitrary technological shift can be called "vintage" for one reason or another. The P4 Netburst architecture was a technological dead end, and can be considered vintage simply for its outdated quirky nature, even if it's not particularly desirable. I'd expect to see a s423 Willamette with Rambus in a vintage computer museum one day.

Likewise, an AMD Athlon is interesting not only because it represents a bygone era when AMD took everyone by surprise and kicked ass (before Ryzen), but also from a technical design point, being an evolved P3 on steroids juxtaposed to the vastly different P4. One can argue than the Athlon with DDR memory is everything that the P4 should have been 😜

And both of them would be vintage for a different reason - being able to natively run Win98 and DOS games, sometimes with ISA sound cards, or even PCI sound cards with DOS compatibility, something that modern hardware can't do without wrappers, emulators, patches, and other hacks.

By that reasoning, I can find some other examples of "vintage" computer technology, such as:
- CPU in a slot cartridge.
- Sound cards with FM synth.
- Socket 7 boards supporting both Intel and AMD processors.
- 1990's graphic cards from brands that no longer exist, supporting some proprietary API.
- CRT monitors.
- ATA hard drives with noisy bearings.

Soon to be vintage:
- optical disk drives.
- PC cases with front expansion bays and not made out of glass.

pixel_workbench wrote on 2021-02-08, 21:27:

Soon to be vintage:
- optical disk drives.

Given how many I've acquired for free because they were already in the case I bought, they're definitely in the obsolete phase (not to me with a large DVD collection) but not yet in the 'this is my ticket to riches, I'll list it on eBay for low three figures' vintage status.

For me I think of retro as not used or supported anymore. You can lump anything that has pre DDR ram, isa/eisa/vlb/PCI/MCA slots, only 1 core CPU, DOS/Win3/Win9x/Win2k, standalone sound cards.

There were major shifts in software going from DOS to Windows 3 then Win9x and NT/2k/XP and from 32 to 64 bit.

If you are real old then anything NOT X86/64 would be retro (8 bit computers, Amiga/ST/IIgs etc).

Big Pink wrote on 2021-02-09, 00:19:

pixel_workbench wrote on 2021-02-08, 21:27:

Soon to be vintage:
- optical disk drives.

Given how many I've acquired for free because they were already in the case I bought, they're definitely in the obsolete phase (not to me with a large DVD collection) but not yet in the 'this is my ticket to riches, I'll list it on eBay for low three figures' vintage status.

Actually I have been trying to stockpile some optical drives since they tend to fail with age more then even HDs (which I also stock).

Unknown_K wrote on 2021-02-09, 00:42:

For me I think of retro as not used or supported anymore. You can lump anything that has [...] standalone sound cards.

To this day I don't consider a PC complete without a dedicated sound card. My daily driver has an ASUS Xonar DGX and I built it out of brand new parts about 2 years ago.