A lot of people have posted recently about retro setups, aiming for one sweet spot system, but there isn't one that really covers everything, and as you noted, old hardware is cheap. The likely counter argument to this is to lament about space & clutter, but for that I don't see why not squeeze more than one board into one case. Having the particular cases is something I'd want to retain, part of the retro charm, but if I were looking to satisfy space and sweet spot coverage, that's what I'd do.

tokyoracer wrote:

I really don't know where to start but I have had recent hankerings to play alot of old DOS / Win95 games

You will have to make a few basic choices first, cause these predefine essential parameters of your system:

Are you the player or the tinkerer? (what do you really want to spend time on?)

Are you a sound guru or is 16bit and FM-Midi just fine?

Can you live with some games just not running, or do you need maximum coverage?

Is your focus rather win95 or rather dos?

Are we talking 1buck & postage hardware or are you looking for presigeous stuff?

ih8registrations wrote:

A lot of people have posted recently about retro setups, aiming for one sweet spot system, but there isn't one that really covers everything, and as you noted, old hardware is cheap. The likely counter argument to this is to lament about space & clutter, but for that I don't see why not squeeze more than one board into one case. Having the particular cases is something I'd want to retain, part of the retro charm, but if I were looking to satisfy space and sweet spot coverage, that's what I'd do.

I'd really be looking at just the one board (due to heat and lack of skill). But it is a very clever idea. Thanks for your post. 😀

ux-3 wrote:

You will have to make a few basic choices first, cause these predefine essential parameters of your system: […]
Show full quote

tokyoracer wrote:

I really don't know where to start but I have had recent hankerings to play alot of old DOS / Win95 games

You will have to make a few basic choices first, cause these predefine essential parameters of your system:

Are you the player or the tinkerer? (what do you really want to spend time on?)

Are you a sound guru or is 16bit and FM-Midi just fine?

Can you live with some games just not running, or do you need maximum coverage?

Is your focus rather win95 or rather dos?

Are we talking 1buck & postage hardware or are you looking for presigeous stuff?

Well due to it's ease and that I grew up with 95 and 3.1, i'd prefer a Windows OS primaraly due to lack of personal experiance with MS DOS (but would like to learn more about it sometime). Also I would like a post Pentium PC ideally so I have some oomph.
Sorry I'm a little vague but i'd be willing to sort out some sort of 'Duel' or 'Tri' boot system too so I can open my options for compatability (I hope).

Would that be of any use?

What games do you want to play exactly. That's what it really comes down to.

You can't build something that will run everything well.

tokyoracer wrote:

Well due to it's ease and that I grew up with 95 and 3.1, i'd prefer a Windows OS primaraly due to lack of personal experiance with MS DOS (but would like to learn more about it sometime). Also I would like a post Pentium PC ideally so I have some oomph.
Sorry I'm a little vague but i'd be willing to sort out some sort of 'Duel' or 'Tri' boot system too so I can open my options for compatability (I hope).

Would that be of any use?

If you have little experience, and are looking for a PC with a little more power, I would suggest something like a simple P2 Retro System to you.

Use Win98se. Other than pure nostalgia or very particular titles, it is probably the best Retro-OS. And it still has a working DOS layer.

If you start from scratch, buy something like a run of the mill PC with a Pentium2, a Voodoo3 2000 (or a combo with a V2) and a SB16/32/64 ISA with 64MB of Ram.

That is a base to easily learn the basics and to let Win95 stuff fly fast.

Heat isn't an issue until you get to later systems, several old systems combined don't match the heat output of today's PCs, and skill isn't particularly high, basically it's gluing or making holes for board mounts, cable extensions and splitters can be bought. Sound can be simply daisy chained from one sound card to another to one set of speakers and a kvm switch to use just one monitor, keyboard and mouse. There are even y-splitters to run more than one motherboard off a single power supply but I'd probably do separate since I wouldn't need them all running at once, though all on allows switching between them instantly with the kvm switch.

I see ranges and what systems I would select as follows:

tandy 1000 sl, hopefully its 8mhz 8086 can also be run at 4.77, else tandy 1000, for xt class games
286-10 for at class games
386-25 for self modifying programs that don't work right with cache
486-66 for 89-92 486 era
pentium 100 or 233 for 93-94, or possibly skip
pro or pii 200-450 for 95-98, not sure if anything needs this particular speed range, though by 96/97 you'd want a pii or better to push glide games to 50-60 fps.
athlon xp, a fast barton, for 99-01, again not sure if anything needs this particular speed range
athlon 64, .., for 02-..

swaaye wrote:

What games do you want to play exactly. That's what it really comes down to.

You can't build something that will run everything well.

Well I have several in mind...

Alien Breed, Another World, C&C, C&C Red Alert, Battle Chess, Beneath a Steel Sky, Bubble Bobble, Chaos Engine, Civilization II, Crazy Cars III, Doom I & II, Dune II, Duke Nukem 3D, Extreme Pinball, Flashback, The Incredible Machine series, F1, F117A Stealth Fighter, F19 Stealth Fighter, F29 Retaliator, Formula 1 Grand Prix, Grand Prix Circuit, Grand Prix Manager 2, Grand Theft Auto, Jimmy Whites Whirlwind Snooker, Jungle Strike, Lamborghini American Challenge, Lemmings series, Lotus the Ultimate Challenge, Micro Machines I and II, Monopoly Deluxe, Monty Pythons Flying Circus, Nascar Racing I and II, One Must Fall 2097, OutRun, PC Rally, Pinball (Dreams, Fantasies, Dreams II, Illusions), The Need for Speed I and II / SE, Power Drive, Screamer, SimCity, Sim City 2000, Simon the Sorcerer I & II, Speedball 2 - Brutal Deluxe, Stunts, Super Stardust 96, System Shock I & II, Test Drive(1, 2 & 3), Theme Park, Theme Hospital, Turrican II - The Final Fight, UFO Enemy Unknown, US Navy Fighters Gold, Vette!, Wolfenstein 3D and Xenon 2 Megablast.

They are all the games I have for Windows or DOS. Preferbly I'd like to Pay as many as the hilighted gomes as possible.

ux-3 wrote:

If you have little experience, and are looking for a PC with a little more power, I would suggest something like a simple P2 Ret […]
Show full quote

tokyoracer wrote:

Well due to it's ease and that I grew up with 95 and 3.1, i'd prefer a Windows OS primaraly due to lack of personal experiance with MS DOS (but would like to learn more about it sometime). Also I would like a post Pentium PC ideally so I have some oomph.
Sorry I'm a little vague but i'd be willing to sort out some sort of 'Duel' or 'Tri' boot system too so I can open my options for compatability (I hope).

Would that be of any use?

If you have little experience, and are looking for a PC with a little more power, I would suggest something like a simple P2 Retro System to you.

Use Win98se. Other than pure nostalgia or very particular titles, it is probably the best Retro-OS. And it still has a working DOS layer.

If you start from scratch, buy something like a run of the mill PC with a Pentium2, a Voodoo3 2000 (or a combo with a V2) and a SB16/32/64 ISA with 64MB of Ram.

That is a base to easily learn the basics and to let Win95 stuff fly fast.

That was the ballpark I was kind-of thinking but didn't think of using 98 SE, I thought 95 had a broader compatability range due to it's DOS system is more comprehensive. I don't doubt your suggestion but out of interest, what's the benefits of having 98 SE over 95?

@ ih8registrations, Thanks for the post, looks really interesting but it a bit beyond my skills I think but maybe a future porject.
Oh and the CPU list you made has made stuff clearer, thanks again. 😀

98se also has third party fixes too

tokyoracer wrote:

Well I have several in mind...

Alien Breed, Another World, C&C, C&C Red Alert, Battle Chess, Beneath a Steel Sky, Bubble Bobble, Chaos Engine, Civilization II, Crazy Cars III, Doom I & II, Dune II, Extreme Pinball, The Incredible Machine series, F1, F117A Stealth Fighter, F19 Stealth Fighter, F29 Retaliator, Formula 1 Grand Prix, Grand Prix Circuit, Grand Prix Manager 2, Grand Theft Auto, Jimmy Whites Whirlwind Snooker, Jungle Strike, Lamborghini American Challenge, Lemmings series, Lotus the Ultimate Challenge, Micro Machines I and II, Monopoly Deluxe, Monty Pythons Flying Circus, Nascar Racing I and II, One Must Fall 2097, OutRun, PC Rally, Pinball (Dreams, Fantasies, Dreams II, Illusions), Power Drive, Screamer, SimCity, Sim City 2000, Simon the Sorcerer I & II, Speedball 2 - Brutal Deluxe, Stunts, Super Stardust 96, System Shock I & II, Test Drive(1, 2 & 3), Theme Park, Theme Hospital, Turrican II - The Final Fight, UFO Enemy Unknown, US Navy Fighters Gold, Vette!, Wolfenstein 3D and Xenon 2 Megablast.

They are all the games I have for Windows or DOS. Preferbly I'd like to Pay as many as the hilighted gomes as possible.

I think 486DX2-66 will be able to handle them good enough. And a Pentium 60 to 166 will do well too. A Pentium 133 will hit the sweet spot. I have many of the games you have listed and they play well in my P133.

Frank exceptions will be the Test Drive 1,2,3 series : Test Drive 3 is too fast in anything above a 386 class.

I see that you have F-29 Retaliator. It's one of my favourites. I was lucky enough to get the boxed, complete PC version which is not available anymore.

Malik wrote:

I think 486DX2-66 will be able to handle them good enough. And a Pentium 60 to 166 will do well too. A Pentium 133 will hit the sweet spot. I have many of the games you have listed and they play well in my P133.

Frank exceptions will be the Test Drive 1,2,3 series : Test Drive 3 is too fast in anything above a 386 class.

I see that you have F-29 Retaliator. It's one of my favourites. I was lucky enough to get the boxed, complete PC version which is not available anymore.

Thanks for that info, I got Test Drive games on other platforms anyway so its not too vital to play them on a PC.
Do you think a PII setup will struggle to run some/most of these games then? Or is a P133 the 'wild card' so-to-speak with them games (most likely to pay as many as the games listed). Only reason I ask is thats pretty much my collection and most of them I have found to be really fun and miss playing.

I assume this is what's suggested, and I can certainly see the advantages of having multiple PC hardware setups in one box (will consider it as a future project for sure). 😀

P.s. I forgot to say, I got a 486 @ 100Mhz in an Acorn RiscPC, maybe I could do something with that sometime?...

In my P133, I can play all the flight sims smoothly - F-117A, F-19, F-29 (F-29 Retaliator is a real beauty, with the same amount of smoothness in a 286, and still smooth in the P133. Very nice coding in terms of speed and smoothness!).

System Shock I no problem, but you may need a high end PII or a basic PIII for System Shock 2 to play well.

On the other hand, a PII will be able to handle 99% of the games listed with both eyes closed!

I don't play driving games too often, but then again, all the driving games I play are in my main XP system or in one of my consoles. Colin McRae 2, DiRT, Flatout, come to my mind. (Not a fan of F1 games.)

I can't say about the Navy Fighters - for one, I don't have it, and two, the SVGA mode may require a faster system to play smoothly - Probably a 200MMX and a decent (at least a MB SVGA card - a S3 Trio 64V+ or any ViRGE will do.)

Your 486 100 will be able to handle about 80% of the games listed quite well.

tokyoracer wrote:

That was the ballpark I was kind-of thinking but didn't think of using 98 SE, I thought 95 had a broader compatability range due to it's DOS system is more comprehensive. I don't doubt your suggestion but out of interest, what's the benefits of having 98 SE over 95?

Actually, I prefer Win98se, because i find it better in all aspects, including DOS. Much easier to get free ram above 600k, much easier to format large HDs, much easier to support Hardware... Win95 Dos had quite a few bugs that needed patching. I would turn the question around: What can win95 do better than Win98se?

I have never tried to install Win 3.11 again under Win98SE. I don't know if that works.

tokyoracer wrote:

Do you think a PII setup will struggle to run some/most of these games then? Or is a P133 the 'wild card' so-to-speak with them games (most likely to pay as many as the games listed). Only reason I ask is thats pretty much my collection and most of them I have found to be really fun and miss playing.

If you choose the right cpu and board, you can easily slow a Pentium 2 to 133 MHz, while also enjoying more than 333 MHz when the need arises. Similarly, you can slow a P1mmx down to 133 MHz too, if the board permits multiplier change. The P1 will just not rival the speed of the p2 on the upper end of the scale.

The only thing 95 does better than 98, to my knowledge, is run a lot better on 486s. Win98's shell is noticeably slower on them. There's little reason to run 98 on a 486 anyway.

Also I have to say that, for DOS games, real hardware is at a disadvantage compared to DOSBOX. You get astonishing compatibility with DOSBOX, more than you can ever get on one PC. And for 9x games you don't really need to limit your CPU speed. There are few 9x games that run too fast on a fast CPU like some DOS games, but there are many that benefit from as much CPU as you can throw at them. Why settle for less than buttery smoothness? On the surface it might seem fun to relive that old hardware, but that fun goes away fast if your games are running at 15fps.

So maybe consider building something that can run both 98SE and XP and use DOSBOX in XP for DOS games. At home I have hardware to build just about anything from a 486 on up, and many sound cards and video cards to choose from. Lots of wasted money. 😀 After years of tinkering, for 98SE I've settled on:

• Athlon XP 1800+
• nForce2 mobo
• 1GB RAM
• SBLive! or Vortex 2
• GeForce 3 or Voodoo5
• Voodoo2

This is essentially what a lot of people had at the end of the 98SE era. It will run any 9x game out there and run it well.

Although frankly if a game runs on one of my modern computers, I don't even mess with retro hardware at all for it. I just like to put the hardware together and mess with it for a few hours, but I have basically never done any considerable gaming on old stuff. The old stuff is starting to lose its charm too because alternatives like DOSBOX turn out to be superior anyway and infinitely less troublesome.

swaaye wrote:

The only thing 95 does better than 98, to my knowledge, is run a lot better on 486s. Win98's shell is noticeably slower on them. […]
Show full quote

The only thing 95 does better than 98, to my knowledge, is run a lot better on 486s. Win98's shell is noticeably slower on them. There's little reason to run 98 on a 486 anyway.

Also I have to say that, for DOS games, real hardware is at a disadvantage compared to DOSBOX. You get astonishing compatibility with DOSBOX, more than you can ever get on one PC. And for 9x games you don't really need to limit your CPU speed. There are few 9x games that run too fast on a fast CPU like some DOS games, but there are many that benefit from as much CPU as you can throw at them. Why settle for less than buttery smoothness? On the surface it might seem fun to relive that old hardware, but that fun goes away fast if your games are running at 15fps.

So maybe consider building something that can run both 98SE and XP and use DOSBOX in XP for DOS games. At home I have hardware to build just about anything from a 486 on up, and many sound cards and video cards to choose from. Lots of wasted money. 😀 After years of tinkering, for 98SE I've settled on:

• Athlon XP 1800+
• nForce2 mobo
• 1GB RAM
• SBLive! or Vortex 2
• GeForce 3, GeForce 7300GT or Voodoo5
• Voodoo2

This is essentially what a lot of people had at the end of the 98SE era. It will run any 9x game out there and run it well.

Although frankly if a game runs on one of my modern computers, I don't even mess with retro hardware at all for it. I just like to put the hardware together and mess with it for a few hours, but I have basically never done any considerable gaming on old stuff. The old stuff is starting to lose its charm too because alternatives like DOSBOX turn out to be superior anyway and infinitely less troublesome.

Win98 drivers for GF 7300GT? 😳

Hey wait, now that you mention it, maybe I have never used that card in 98SE!! 😁 I'm just confused. I have my retro Win9x box set up for dual boot with XP. I sometimes use that card in it but only with XP. I have too many video cards!!!

The GeForce 3 is great though. It has really nice image quality and is fast enough for anything that needs 98SE.

Voodoo5 of course has its uses too.

swaaye wrote:

The only thing 95 does better than 98, to my knowledge, is run a lot better on 486s.

Oh well, if that counts, you could add that it runs on systems with limited memory like 4 MB or 8 MB. 🙄

swaaye wrote:

Also I have to say that, for DOS games, real hardware is at a disadvantage compared to DOSBOX.

I completely agree on this statement! That is why I trashed my oldest retro machine. It did hurt briefly.

swaaye wrote:

And for 9x games you don't really need to limit your CPU speed.

True in a way! However, there are games that cause problems. Unfortunately some of those I consider important, like Microproses "Magic the Gathering". But if thats not your kind of game, who cares. Hit the accelerator!

swaaye wrote:

So maybe consider building something that can run both 98SE and XP and use DOSBOX in XP for DOS games. ... After years of tinker […]
Show full quote

So maybe consider building something that can run both 98SE and XP and use DOSBOX in XP for DOS games. ... After years of tinkering, for 98SE I've settled on:

• Athlon XP 1800+
• nForce2 mobo
• 1GB RAM
• SBLive! or Vortex 2
• GeForce 3, GeForce 7300GT or Voodoo5
• Voodoo2

Apparently, logic comes to similar conclusions regarding systems. I myself use an Athlon XP-M 2600+ with an Epox KT600 mobo, 512 MB Ram, a SB Live! and a GF6800 for Win98. Voodoo is done by wrapper. The reason is the widescreen TFT, which the GF6 can use with aspect correction.
I don't use XP or Dosbox on it though, I find it too slow and I follow your next suggestion.

swaaye wrote:

Although frankly if a game runs on one of my modern computers, I don't even mess with retro hardware at all for it.

I have also adopted this approch.

swaaye wrote:

The old stuff is starting to lose its charm too because alternatives like DOSBOX turn out to be superior anyway and infinitely less troublesome.

Same conclusion again - I trashed my real DOS-PC over two years ago, when Dosbox on my C2D outperformed it. The added incentive was physical aging of the stuff - once gone it would be hard to replace.

Malik wrote:

In my P133, I can play all the flight sims smoothly - F-117A, F-19, F-29 (F-29 Retaliator is a real beauty, with the same amount […]
Show full quote

In my P133, I can play all the flight sims smoothly - F-117A, F-19, F-29 (F-29 Retaliator is a real beauty, with the same amount of smoothness in a 286, and still smooth in the P133. Very nice coding in terms of speed and smoothness!).

System Shock I no problem, but you may need a high end PII or a basic PIII for System Shock 2 to play well.

On the other hand, a PII will be able to handle 99% of the games listed with both eyes closed!

I don't play driving games too often, but then again, all the driving games I play are in my main XP system or in one of my consoles. Colin McRae 2, DiRT, Flatout, come to my mind. (Not a fan of F1 games.)

I can't say about the Navy Fighters - for one, I don't have it, and two, the SVGA mode may require a faster system to play smoothly - Probably a 200MMX and a decent (at least a MB SVGA card - a S3 Trio 64V+ or any ViRGE will do.)

Your 486 100 will be able to handle about 80% of the games listed quite well.

Well that sounds great, So really my options are a PI @ 133 Mhz or a PII which I could underclock at the same frequency. If it doesn't work I got a 486 I can fall back on (which I should be able to run Win95 or 3.1 on).
I'm sure I got a spare PII CPU card at 500Mhz, is that good enough to run System Shock 2? What's the fastest PII made just out of interest?

ux-3 wrote:

tokyoracer wrote:

Actually, I prefer Win98se, because i find it better in all aspects, including DOS. Much easier to get free ram above 600k, much easier to format large HDs, much easier to support Hardware... Win95 Dos had quite a few bugs that needed patching. I would turn the question around: What can win95 do better than Win98se?

I have never tried to install Win 3.11 again under Win98SE. I don't know if that works.

Well that's settled then, Win98 SE is the OS for me, thanks! 😀

ux-3 wrote:

tokyoracer wrote:

If you choose the right cpu and board, you can easily slow a Pentium 2 to 133 MHz, while also enjoying more than 333 MHz when the need arises. Similarly, you can slow a P1mmx down to 133 MHz too, if the board permits multiplier change. The P1 will just not rival the speed of the p2 on the upper end of the scale.

So if I could 'underclock' a PII at say 500Mhz to 133Mhz, then would that do the job of a genuine PI @ 133Mhz just as well?

swaaye wrote:

The only thing 95 does better than 98, to my knowledge, is run a lot better on 486s. Win98's shell is noticeably slower on them. […]
Show full quote

The only thing 95 does better than 98, to my knowledge, is run a lot better on 486s. Win98's shell is noticeably slower on them. There's little reason to run 98 on a 486 anyway.

Also I have to say that, for DOS games, real hardware is at a disadvantage compared to DOSBOX. You get astonishing compatibility with DOSBOX, more than you can ever get on one PC. And for 9x games you don't really need to limit your CPU speed. There are few 9x games that run too fast on a fast CPU like some DOS games, but there are many that benefit from as much CPU as you can throw at them. Why settle for less than buttery smoothness? On the surface it might seem fun to relive that old hardware, but that fun goes away fast if your games are running at 15fps.

So maybe consider building something that can run both 98SE and XP and use DOSBOX in XP for DOS games. At home I have hardware to build just about anything from a 486 on up, and many sound cards and video cards to choose from. Lots of wasted money. 😀 After years of tinkering, for 98SE I've settled on:

• Athlon XP 1800+
• nForce2 mobo
• 1GB RAM
• SBLive! or Vortex 2
• GeForce 3 or Voodoo5
• Voodoo2

This is essentially what a lot of people had at the end of the 98SE era. It will run any 9x game out there and run it well.

Although frankly if a game runs on one of my modern computers, I don't even mess with retro hardware at all for it. I just like to put the hardware together and mess with it for a few hours, but I have basically never done any considerable gaming on old stuff. The old stuff is starting to lose its charm too because alternatives like DOSBOX turn out to be superior anyway and infinitely less troublesome.

Well funny enough, the PC I use everyday (amazingly have done since late 2001 on it's original Mobo and CPU!) has an AMD Athlon XP 2600+.
But really it's too modern for 98 as I have run this on that AGES ago and it was buggy and as stable as a 1 legged mule, with heavy shopping. Also has loads of fairly recent upgrades so it's prob's not ideal.

The reason I don't use DOSbox is because I find it very buggy and the games I tried where either very slow or didn't work at all...
Sorry to be a pain. 🙁

[EDIT] Bloody hell, I just chucked a GF 3 card a few months ago! 😵
Was a 128 Mb one too with V Ram coolers (made by Sparkle).

tokyoracer wrote:

Well funny enough, the PC I use everyday (amazingly have done since late 2001 on it's original Mobo and CPU!) has an AMD Athlon XP 2600+.
But really it's too modern for 98 as I have run this on that AGES ago and it was buggy and as stable as a 1 legged mule, with heavy shopping.

That's how 9x is no matter what you run it on. 😀 I don't know how the computing world functioned when that OS was in its prime.

We used NT4 when we wanted to work.