Reply 20 of 53, by dr.zeissler
I only have a view Megabytes free, so only small games possible.
Perhaps some win95-remakes of old games.
Retro-Gamer 😀 ...on different machines
I only have a view Megabytes free, so only small games possible.
Perhaps some win95-remakes of old games.
Retro-Gamer 😀 ...on different machines
lets see what this is https://archive.org/details/WIN95GAMES
Retro-Gamer 😀 ...on different machines
wrote:I only have a view Megabytes free, so only small games possible.
Storage or RAM?
both! 512MB HDD and 32MB RAM 😀 CirrusLogic 1MB (CL542x)
For the Games I only want to about 100MB.
Retro-Gamer 😀 ...on different machines
Use an external Zip100 drive to store games on. 😁
Vanilla W95a on a 486 here. HD in a 5.25" slot caddy for easy removal and off-rig file/data transfer & setup.
no problem! my 486 has several connections:
- onboard-lan 10mbit ->NAS 8TB 😀
- 2x2gb cf
- 4way lpt-switchbox
lpt1a-covox
lpt1b-parcp to atari-megaste
lpt1c-commodore 1541-II
lpt1d-zipdrive100mb
Retro-Gamer 😀 ...on different machines
wrote:Use an external Zip100 drive to store games on. 😁
what have you installed on it?
Retro-Gamer 😀 ...on different machines
I don't use a Zip100; that was addressed to you since you said you are low on storage space.
I'm using an 8 GB CF card with plenty of room for games. 😁
wrote:Well, an AMD 5x86 X5-133 is as fast as a Pentium 75. Actually, it's even faster than a P75
pfft
try Quake
wrote:At first I thought you made a typo with "SX2/66" and really meant to write "SX2/50", but low and behold, there really was an FPU-less SX2 at 66 MHz. http://chipdb.org/img-intel-a80486sx2-66-q0569-es-6750.htm
What was the market for the SX2-66? Why would someone go for this chip over a DX2-66? How much savings was there? I'm surprised Intel even made this. Did Intel really have a sizable quantity of Intel DX2-66 chips with defective FPUs? I thought Intel just disabled the FPUs on perfectly fine DX2 chips to make the SX.
Based on a few online resources there was never a publically released SX2 66, only the SX2 50. The chip you linked to is an internal engineering sample. Likely one intel was testing but never released. The early SX chips were DX chips with a defective/disabled FPU, but later on in the production of the 486 intel created a dedicated FPU-less die for the SX line. You can tell which die an SX has by the shape of the gold cover on the bottom.
Good info with a photo here:
http://www.os2museum.com/wp/lies-damn-lies-and-wikipedia/
wrote:But a P75-like machine can handle early Win9x games fine if the rest of the system isn't crappy.
Perhaps games like pod racer or games from 1995, yet Win98-era games? No way.
Anything lower than P-266-mmx are for MS-Dos-6.22 only in my book, if we have to talk about gaming.
Shure I had Win95 installed on the 486dx2-66 I had in the mid to last half of the 90's.
Yet that was not for gaming Win9x games. I had MS-Office installed on it and ran Doom through Win95.
(I had other systems installed on it as well. Linux and Os/2)
My first experiences with Win9x as a gaming platform, was the K6-II-500 I bought around 1998.
I had Win98 installed on it, and still I was not pleased with gaming performance. Too slow.
Shure you can try a 486/486-like CPU for experimenting and see the lagging up close in person.
Nobody will stop anyone for trying.
Don't eat stuff off a 15 year old never cleaned cpu cooler.
Those cakes make you sick....
My blog: http://to9xct.blogspot.dk
My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/brostenen
001100 010010 011110 100001 101101 110011
On and off, I have been compiling a list of playable early 3D games for my Cyrix 5x86-133 system (Win95c). An AMD Am5x86-160 should play similarly. Many of us were still using a 486 in 1997 and 1998. I wasn't the only individual among my peers still using a 486 in 1998.
My tests were done using a Voodoo2, however, I intend to repeat them with a Voodoo1 and I suspect the results won't be too dissimilar.
Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.
wrote:wrote:At first I thought you made a typo with "SX2/66" and really meant to write "SX2/50", but low and behold, there really was an FPU-less SX2 at 66 MHz. http://chipdb.org/img-intel-a80486sx2-66-q0569-es-6750.htm
What was the market for the SX2-66? Why would someone go for this chip over a DX2-66? How much savings was there? I'm surprised Intel even made this. Did Intel really have a sizable quantity of Intel DX2-66 chips with defective FPUs? I thought Intel just disabled the FPUs on perfectly fine DX2 chips to make the SX.
Based on a few online resources there was never a publically released SX2 66, only the SX2 50.
The ODP486SX-33 is an SX2-66, and came in two revisions / sSpecs.
See my graphics card database at www.gpuzoo.com
Constantly being worked on. Feel free to message me with any corrections or details of cards you would like me to research and add.
wrote:wrote:wrote:At first I thought you made a typo with "SX2/66" and really meant to write "SX2/50", but low and behold, there really was an FPU-less SX2 at 66 MHz. http://chipdb.org/img-intel-a80486sx2-66-q0569-es-6750.htm
What was the market for the SX2-66? Why would someone go for this chip over a DX2-66? How much savings was there? I'm surprised Intel even made this. Did Intel really have a sizable quantity of Intel DX2-66 chips with defective FPUs? I thought Intel just disabled the FPUs on perfectly fine DX2 chips to make the SX.
Based on a few online resources there was never a publically released SX2 66, only the SX2 50.
The ODP486SX-33 is an SX2-66, and came in two revisions / sSpecs.
The ODP486SX-33 is 66 MHz, but has an FPU-enabled DX2 core. I see three sSpecs (SZ801, SZ862, SZ875). Intel later released the SX2ODP50, which was missing the FPU, but was only rated to 50 MHz. There was no SX2ODP66. All ODP486XX models have the FPU enabled.
Some discussion regarding this: http://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php? … hlight=odp486sx
And here: http://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php? … hlight=odp486sx
The LucasArts Desktop adventures might run fine as well.
wrote:pfft
try Quake
I tried Quake already. DOS version runs just as bad as on a P75. It's not unplayable, but only runs with 10 to 15 fps. GL Quake however will most likely be very playable thanks to the Voodoo.
wrote:Perhaps games like pod racer or games from 1995, yet Win98-era games? No way.
You know the meaning of "early"? No one said it can run games from 1998 or even later. Also, it heavily depends on what games you are talking about. Yes, it won't run Quake II, but it runs Age of Empires at perfect speed, even though both games are from 1997 and AoE even lists a P90 as the bare minimum. You can always find examples for whatever statement. The fun thing about Win9x gaming on a 486 is to find those games that do actually run well.
GL Quake however will most likely be very playable thanks to the Voodoo.
Just tested it and indeed it's very smooth.
//edit:
I just updated my copy of Quake from version 1.01 to 1.08 and now even the DOS version is fast enough to be fully playable. I'm going to make some videos later.
wrote:You know the meaning of "early"? No one said it can run games from 1998 or even later. Also, it heavily depends on what games you are talking about. Yes, it won't run Quake II, but it runs Age of Empires at perfect speed, even though both games are from 1997 and AoE even lists a P90 as the bare minimum. You can always find examples for whatever statement. The fun thing about Win9x gaming on a 486 is to find those games that do actually run well.
Yes. I know the meaning of early. The question in this tread is Win95/98 games. That is why I read and hear Windows98 games too. You know. Games from 1998 as well.
It is not me, who is asking about both Win95 and Win98 games on a 486. And not Dos/early-Win95 gaming on a 486.
Don't eat stuff off a 15 year old never cleaned cpu cooler.
Those cakes make you sick....
My blog: http://to9xct.blogspot.dk
My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/brostenen
001100 010010 011110 100001 101101 110011
Does Mortal Kombat 4 from 1998 count? Installed and tested that and it runs with 30+ fps using the Voodoo card.