oerk wrote:

KT7AGuy wrote:

By the way: I wouldn't recommend running XP with any of these configuration choices. It'll be a dog and any game that would run under XP with these specs would also run under Win98SE as well. There's no good reason to run XP with this system.

Stability? I wouldn't run games on 98SE if they can run on XP as well. 98SE is for the games that won't run on NT based OSes.

My pick would be the Athlon and GF4Ti, paired with 512MB RAM. Preferably with an ISA slot if you want to run DOS as well (like a KT7 or KT7A 😊 )

I know that some games just have problems running on windows xp.. And would only run on windows 98 se..and win2000

And really nothing would help to fix that problem.

Robin4 wrote:

oerk wrote:

KT7AGuy wrote:

By the way: I wouldn't recommend running XP with any of these configuration choices. It'll be a dog and any game that would run under XP with these specs would also run under Win98SE as well. There's no good reason to run XP with this system.

Stability? I wouldn't run games on 98SE if they can run on XP as well. 98SE is for the games that won't run on NT based OSes.

My pick would be the Athlon and GF4Ti, paired with 512MB RAM. Preferably with an ISA slot if you want to run DOS as well (like a KT7 or KT7A 😊 )

I know that some games just have problems running on windows xp.. And would only run on windows 98 se..and win2000

And really nothing would help to fix that problem.

I have definitely seen those games that only run on 9x. That is where dual boot comes in handy

Try a system with a Morgan core Duron up to 1.3GHz. They are like mini-Athlon XP's, so you will get both SSE and 3DNow support as opposed to a Athlon T-bird with only having 3Dnow and a Pentium III/4 with only SSE/SSE2. Try a Geforce 3 or 4 card with that Duron too.

smeezekitty wrote:

Robin4 wrote:

oerk wrote:

Stability? I wouldn't run games on 98SE if they can run on XP as well. 98SE is for the games that won't run on NT based OSes.

My pick would be the Athlon and GF4Ti, paired with 512MB RAM. Preferably with an ISA slot if you want to run DOS as well (like a KT7 or KT7A 😊 )

I know that some games just have problems running on windows xp.. And would only run on windows 98 se..and win2000

And really nothing would help to fix that problem.

I have definitely seen those games that only run on 9x. That is where dual boot comes in handy

Indeed? Personally I've had great, lasting, performance with a Pentium III 1GHz and 512mb ram with XP SP3 and still be able to run games good like on 98. besides, early XP era laptops used cpus 800MHz - 1.1GHz and up and they worked well for their time.

I suppose I'm just not understanding why so many folks are recommending XP for a pre-2002 era legacy gaming machine. Here's my responses to arguments for running XP:

XP allows you to use more RAM.
Yes it does, but not on an i815E it won't. You're stuck with a max of 512mb no matter what. Same goes for Tualatin systems.

For pre-2002 gaming, is more than 512mb really necessary? I don't think so. I remember 128mb-256mb RAM being the standard around that time. 512mb was serious overkill unless you wanted to run XP... and now we have XP being the cause-of and solution-to the RAM deficiency problem.

Even if you want more RAM in an Athlon-based system, why bother? You would be better off buying a cheap P4 or Athlon 64 OEM system and doing things right for XP with a dedicated build. Better yet, build a really nice XP legacy system with an IP35 Pro and a C2D.

XP is more compatible with modern hardware.
Yes it is, but we're not talking about modern hardware here.
Exactly what pre-2002 era hardware will work with XP but not Win98SE? I can't think of any at all. I would argue that there is some pre-2002 hardware that lacks support in XP, but works fine in Win98SE. As far as I remember, we really didn't start seeing too much Win9x-incompatible hardware until around 2005. The first non-Win9x GF card I can think of would be the GF7 which came out in late 2006.

XP is more stable.
True, but Win98SE is stable enough for the intended purpose. This is going to be a hobbyist's pre-2002 legacy gaming system. It's not going to be a production PC for handling payroll, processing database inquiries, or writing doctoral theses. The rare BSOD during a video game can surely be tolerated for the sake of performance and compatibility.

... and here is my logic:

- XP SP2 without any updates will use more resources and possibly hinder performance when compared to Win98SE. On a P3 system, if you absolutely must run an NT-based OS, Windows 2000 makes the most sense. But why bother? Win98SE still makes more sense.

- XP is less compatible with pre-2002 games than Win98SE. Like I said above regarding hardware: I can't think of any pre-2002 era games that will work with XP but not Win98SE. However, there are more than a few that will work on Win98SE, but not XP.

(I thought Halo was the first non-Win98SE game, but I just checked and even that will run on Win98SE. Is Fable the first non-Win98SE game? That one came out in 2004.)

- XP is less compatible with DOS games than Win98SE. The argument for using DOSBox is just as valid for a Win98SE system, as it runs just fine there too.

The only pro-XP argument I can think of is for some contemporary community-based unofficial updates/patches for pre-2002 era games that won't work on Win98SE. A few I can think of:

Command & Conquer. BattleZone. Dungeon Keeper. European Air War. Enemy Engaged. Final Fantasy 7. I'm sure there are others...

Even then, I doubt those upgraded community-based updates would run well on a P3 or Athlon system anyway. They really require a faster CPU and GPU.

I understand the argument for dual-booting XP to get the best of both worlds, but I just don't think it's worth the hassle on a P3 or Athlon system. It's really a pain in the ass. You're better off building a real XP legacy PC and using a KVM switch.

Somebody please enlighten me. I feel like I'm missing out on something important here.

Hi to all,

...I really don´t understand what stability problems you talk about with 98SE. Got various machines running it, the mainly used ones a ABIT BH6 with PIII850 on slocket, 512 RAM, GF2Ti; ASUS CUBX, PIII1000, 512RAM, GF4Ti.
After a proper install, both machines are running for years without any stability problem at all. Playing games from as early as ´97 and as late as 2003, both do their jobs without any problem - no CTD, no freeze, no lagging with game specific settings in bios and drivers. I only can speculate, that stability issues come with hardware later than at least 2003ff which might have been designed with only XP in mind. With that, I´m no expert at all, because that era of hardware couldn´t catch my interest any more....
greetings duncan

The P3 1GHz can handle games from 1998 - 2000 but when it comes to games from 2001 - 2002 I think the socket A system would be a better choice. The Geforce 4 ti is the video card I would use as it can handle everything you would want to play in Windows 9x

If your socket A board supports 133(266) Mhz FSB then I would get an fast Athlon XP to get even more speed.
Here in Sweden you can get one for ~$1 including shipping so they are not expensive.

$1 including shipping? So basically they're giving them away.

Half-Saint wrote:

$1 including shipping? So basically they're giving them away.

Minimum starting bid on Swedish "Ebay" is 1 SEK and shipping for a single CPU is 7 SEK 😀, in total a little more than $1.
Non Barton Athlon XP CPUs never sell for more than the minimum starting bid if they sell at all.

🤣 $1 each... and Athlon XPs make fantastic internet PCs even today. I'm typing this on a 700MHz Pentium III with 256MB Ram and a slow 20GB UDMA 33 hard drive browsing the web with the latest version of Firefox + Avast with little trouble or slowdowns. A lot of people forget just how much muscle is still left in these old cpus... 😉

Darkman wrote:

as for the OS, you could always dual boot , I would recommend Win98 and 2000, which has a lower footprint than XP , and is just as compatible as far as the games you want to run (where 2000 becomes irrelevant is around 2005-6 for games)

Changing my vote to this. What I really meant was dual booting 98 and XP, but for the time frame, 98 and 2000 would be a better choice. Run 2000 normally, and use 98 for everything that won't run on 2000.

Honestly, unless you're gonna run something that doesn't work well with Win98, I'd stick with a Win98SE-only build...
Since you'll have to install 98 first anyway, I suggest that you install it, set it up, use it for a while and, if you face stability issues/desire to run something that doesn't agree with it, install 2k afterwards.

My clone Pentium 233 MMX, 32MB RAM, PCI Matrox, Sound Blaster 16 CT2230, works 100% stable with Windows 98 SE.

The rare BSOD during a video game can surely be tolerated for the sake of performance and compatibility.

Personally I find a crash in game infuriating. I would happily trade performance for stability as long as you are not on the ragged edge in unplayability.

Changing my vote to this. What I really meant was dual booting 98 and XP, but for the time frame, 98 and 2000 would be a better choice. Run 2000 normally, and use 98 for everything that won't run on 2000.

2000 + 98 dual boot would be a great idea.

typing this on a 700MHz Pentium III with 256MB Ram and a slow 20GB UDMA 33 hard drive browsing the web with the latest version of Firefox + Avast with little trouble or slowdowns.

HOW??!
Firefox is using 600+MB for me.

256 MB and latest firefox are not something that should exist in the same sentence.

As someone mentioned using Avast above... Do not bother installing an Anti Virus unless you plan on downloading stuff from the internet directly from that PC. The latest antiviruses do support neither 2000 nor 98 anyway, and XP is soon to join. Besides, I remember my P3 700MHz. At the end of its run (circa 2007/2008), a bare installation of 2000 or even XP was fine enough for general use... but as soon as an AV got installed things slowed down considerably.

It's all about optimizing and tweaking. 😀 Plus Firefox recently made their browser work faster on slow machines. Honestly, the PC was unbearably slow until a few days ago. Now it does not feel too aged anymore.

alexanrs wrote:

As someone mentioned using Avast above... Do not bother installing an Anti Virus unless you plan on downloading stuff from the internet directly from that PC. The latest antiviruses do support neither 2000 nor 98 anyway, and XP is soon to join. Besides, I remember my P3 700MHz. At the end of its run (circa 2007/2008), a bare installation of 2000 or even XP was fine enough for general use... but as soon as an AV got installed things slowed down considerably.

You can still get viruses just by clicking on seemingly safe links and images during a web search. Safety is paramount. Better stick with Antivirus. Also, if you disable the outdated XP firewall, XP always becomes a good chunk faster.

KT7AGuy wrote:

I suppose I'm just not understanding why so many folks are recommending XP for a pre-2002 era legacy gaming machine. Somebody please enlighten me. I feel like I'm missing out on something important here.

I made such a recommendation, and I'm fine responding to your points, but that seems somewhat counterproductive. This isn't an attempt at a "flame war" or anything. 😀

I don't think you're missing anything, you just have a different opinion of how to do things than other people. And that isn't right, or wrong, compared to other people's opinions. Personally I'd rather get more performance out of my dollar, but some people really care about era accuracy, some people just want a specific piece of hardware, some people are trying to re-create a machine they used to own, etc. I think targeting 1996-2002 is too broad for many of those "re-creation" goals though, because you're encompassing MMX to P4, Voodoo 1 to GeForce 4, etc. If you have games that are right on the end in 2002 (like Morrowind or Halo), you'd appreciate the faster machine. But if your games, instead, sit mostly on the earlier side in 1996 (like Lego Island or Command & Conquer), a P2 would easily be "the faster machine" there.

Thus, I think we really need more information about what the machine here is actually needing to do - which games from pre-2002 or thereabouts are we actually interested in? Without this information I think we're just going to end up talking in circles or re-hashing XP vs 98 or P3 vs P4 or some other holy war. 😊

computergeek92 wrote:

You can still get viruses just by clicking on seemingly safe links and images during a web search. Safety is paramount. Better stick with Antivirus. Also, if you disable the outdated XP firewall, XP always becomes a good chunk faster.

Unless the site exploits some vulnerability on the browser itself, just clicking on a link shouldn't do so... Unless its Internet Explorer 6 and below with ActiveX. Honestly, even in my main Win8 machine I haven't seen the AV bleep much, and the few times it did, I had consciously downloaded a file.
If all he does on the internet on that machine is go to gamefaqs or research games settings, or downloading drivers from official sources, having an AV is overkill.
Anyway, I never knew the firewall had such an impact. Good to know... They are not that useful behind a router, but I never bothered trying to disable it. Will try doing so in the future, thanks for the tip.

I only run MSE on my system and haven't had a virus in 3 years. And I download a LOT

The virus problem doesn't seem to be as prevalent as in the early 2000s