user33331 wrote on 2022-05-02, 08:07:

Speaker types back in early 2000 were: 4.1, 5.1, 7.1 for 3D multisound.
- 4.1 is obsolete. Not manufactured for a long time.

My point was you don't explicitly need an era specific speaker setup for things like EAX or A3D.

You can rig up a multi speaker setup with modern speakers. Or even use 2.0 speakers or headphones and still benefit from EAX and A3D beyond normal stereo sound.

user33331 wrote on 2022-05-02, 08:03:

Yes but was EAX really limited to WinXP exclusively ?
I remember Win98SE had EAX too and working compatible drivers for EAX sound cards.

Uhm.. yes, it is limited to Windows XP exclusively, if those games are Windows XP games, that will not run (or run poorly) on Windows 98. 😀
Windows 98 also supports EAX (in games that run on Windows 98), but try to run a game like FEAR (and many others like it) in Win98 and see what happens. 😁

Shponglefan wrote on 2022-05-02, 08:12:

Or even use 2.0 speakers or headphones and still benefit from EAX and A3D beyond normal stereo sound.

In some cases, it might even be more beneficial to use headphones.

For one, A3D 2.0 will give you much better positional audio over headphones. And later EAX capable cards (such as the Audigy and X-Fi series) have CMSS 3D which also works great with headphones.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2022-05-02, 05:19:

VIA had issues with SATA2/SATA3 drives. You need specific HDD/SSD to work around it.

Was wondering why my MBO won't recognize new 120GB SATA SSD drives and had to resort using sata-ide adapter instead. Do you know any SSD brands and models that will work with these mobos?

user33331 wrote on 2022-05-02, 06:34:

How many games really need WinXP ?

By my experience, as time goes by, more and more games develop issues with modern PCs and modern versions of Windows. Some can be worked around, some not so much. Also it's a mixed bag. Sometimes digital (re)releases develop issues retail versions don't, sometimes they fix them. Also issues with EAX was already discussed. Alchemy attempts to fix the issue, but it's far from perfect.

user33331 wrote on 2022-05-02, 06:34:

Eternal love to 1990s large cardboard boxed games.
For example in 2003 NFS Underground 1 was released in an tiny DVD plastic cover.

Depends on the publisher and region. EA was early on cheaping out. CD Projekt and CDV had some really nice releases as far as the late 2000s putting some of EA's collectors editions to shame. Regionally probably the UK and the US kept their nice boxes the longest.

What really killed boxed games was digital distribution alongside with online DRM systems.

Now I remember there were WinXP 32-bit and 64-bit.
That 32-bit install is the most compatible one but still a lot of old games refused to work with it.

Are pure WinXP/7 motherboards like: Core 2 Duo and Athlon 64 finally in demand today ?
( I just kind of dislike XP because you know it can not run most 1990s games. )

user33331 wrote on 2022-05-02, 09:53:

Are pure WinXP/7 motherboards like: Core 2 Duo and Athlon 64 finally in demand today ?

AMD trends upward and Athlon FX especially. But feature rich and/or high-end motherboards are indeed in demand. AMD had some of short-lived sockets back then in the early XP era that collectors like, like the s754; s939 and s940.

For Core2, high-end stuff are in demand, but not everything is gold because of their abundance.

bloodem wrote on 2022-05-02, 06:03:

As others have mentioned, it's not worth it. Depending on where you live, you could buy something A LOT more powerful for more or less the same amount of money.

For example, in (certain parts of) Europe, with a bit of patience you could buy a Core i5 2500K (or similar) + motherboard + RAM for ~ 50 euros. Throw in a GTX 750Ti which typically also sells for 50 euros, and you've got yourself a killer WinXP rig.

Now, judging from your eBay link, I'm guessing you're from Australia, so not sure what the availability & prices are in your neck of the woods. 😀

Yeah, availability for very old parts are not frequent, most times we have to buy from overseas which incuurs import costs and postage costs on top of the items price.

Regressed93 wrote on 2022-05-02, 04:36:

Hi, I saw this listing on eBay(https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/313877334192?chn= … k0aAgStEALw_wcB) and thought "While it will take […]
Show full quote

Hi, I saw this listing on eBay(https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/313877334192?chn= … k0aAgStEALw_wcB) and thought "While it will take me some time before I build my High-End Windows XP gaming PC, this I feel would be acceptable enough to play majority of the games available on Windows XP, if it had a good GPU to go with the cpu"

And this brings me to here, with THIS PC I'm not chasing any granduer all settings maxxed out type of deal, for this PC I'll settle for most settings set to medium, maybe one or two maxxed out at 720p60fps, maybe 1080p60fps at a stretch.

But I'm unsure what gpu would compliment this pc I'm unsure if it is an agp mobo or pci or pci-e, so just to ensure all three connectors are covered maybe reccomend a good gpu for each connector so when i buy the pc and i find out what connector it is using, i can buy the gpu(or an equivalent)that slots into the connector.

I appreciate any and all help provided.

One thing I noticed is that your board seems to be a VIA sA board with P4 plug. This could be significant (could!) as this may help replace or upgrade the PSU if the current one gives up the ghost since you probably wouldn't need to hunt for a specific PSU with good power on 5V.

Serpent Rider is correct. The early VIA SATA southbridges are bugged in that they will simply not recognize any SATA2 or later drives. I've run into this problem myself at some point and I ended up just considering these early VIA boards to be IDE only (basically ignoring they even have SATA).
Other options include using one of those SATA2IDE adapters or to find an older SATA1 drive.

'Your' board seems to be this one:
https://picclick.it/Carte-mère-ASUS-A7V ... id=1&pid=1
an ASUS-A7V8X-LA

Concerning the onboard NIC, it might very well be dead. Either that or the previous user couldn't find the driver for the onboard LAN and decided to skip it by installing a NIC for which he did have a driver. But it's mostly guessing at this stage, but still something noticeable.

This board is obviously an OEM board, but I presume it does use a standard power connector.

Concerning price and upgradeability, this board will probably handle (I did not read the manual, doing this from top of my head atm) up to 2*1GB DDR @333MHz or 400MHz OR 1 DIMM @333MHz or 400MHz. Installing more will often underclock the memory with these sA chipsets.

Having said that, personally I think this could indeed fulfill what you mentioned here:
"with THIS PC I'm not chasing any granduer all settings maxxed out type of deal, for this PC I'll settle for most settings set to medium, maybe one or two maxxed out at 720p60fps, maybe 1080p60fps at a stretch"
though I don't know about the resolution you picked.

CPU is probably kinda maxed out, I'd leave it as this. Memory could be upgraded to 1GB at the least. If you really want to go 2GB you could, but you can make it work with 'just' 1GB if you stay with XP SP2 at the latest and don't push this rig too far (personally I wouldn't bother installing SP3 with a rig like this one here).

My guess is this board will not work with 2GB DDR1 modules.

Storage will be somewhat limited due to the nature of its onboard connectors. This board is µATX and if you really want to add LAN and a dedicated sound card, you'll have limited options for adding a SATA controller card.

Graphics card wise, I'd agree with what's been mentioned here before and get something like a GF4 or up.
GF7 will also work and I loved both my AGP passive-sinked GF7600 cards, but be wary that the passive cooled ones will have a higher chance of having failed due to bumpgate because these cards tended to be easier to overheat (which is the exact problem I had with my GF7600 AGP passive before adding a 8cm case fan to both).

Something faster than a 7600GS is probably somewhat wasted unless you want to play older XP games with everything turned to max or something. I was using run-of-the-mill 17in and 19in flat screened monitors (not CRT ones) with GF7600GS and GF6800 and games like BF2 and FEAR were playable. But BF2 would sometimes start lagging with tons of bots doing all kinds of things like crashing into each other. This was with CPUs slightly more powerful than the 2.08GHz one included in this royalty OEM build.
Remember that if you decide to add in a dedicated graphics card, you're probably gonna have to look into upgrading the PSU. Just adding in a graphics card (especially one that requires relatively more power) could require more power than that PSU can deliver (I mean it could catch fire or a short or explode or start smoking or simply refuse to turn on).

EDIT: Is it too expensive? It depends. What others have mentioned here is correct, you can get cheaper XP PCs that will also be substantially faster and probably also easier to work with (main limitations of this system will be the buggy VIA onboard SATA virtually limiting you to IDE, the perhaps dead or otherwise unavailable onboard LAN, max 2GB or RAM as it is DDR1, AGP which limits finding upgrades for a reasonable price, no upgrades for the CPU as it is already kinda maxed (fastest official AXP is 2.2GHz and 2.08GHz is really close to this official max), virtually unavailability of CPU HSF upgrades (more modern CPU HSFs will probably not fit), limitations for upgrading or replacing the PSU (needs 20p connector for instance), µATX limiting upgradeability and customization options of this system and board.

So in short, if you get this system you'll kinda be stuck with it as it is.

Jura Tastatura wrote:

Was wondering why my MBO won't recognize new 120GB SATA SSD drives and had to resort using sata-ide adapter instead. Do you know any SSD brands and models that will work with these mobos?

SandForce based SSDs (OCZ Vertex 3, early Kingston HyperX, etc) can be forced into specific SATA mode by SandForce utility made by vlo. Maybe other controller utilities are also available. Some obscure SSDs were SATA1, with capacities up to 32-64Gb.

user33331 wrote on 2022-05-02, 06:34:

How many games really need WinXP ?

IMHO most DirectX 9 games are more suitable under WinXP, especially later titles that benefit from additional RAM (of which Win98SE can't handle well) or a better video card (that might not have Win98SE driver).

For example, Call of Duty (released on Oct 29, 2003 with DirectX 9.0b bundled) and United Offensive (Sep 15, 2004 with DirectX 9.0c) were Win98SE and WinXP compatible, but Call of Duty 2 (Oct 25, 2005) required WinXP. I'd be more happy to play them in the same build.

Released on August 3, 2004, Doom 3 was one of the first (if not THE first) games that required WinXP and had DirectX 9.0b bundled. The Steam version specifically states "does not support Windows Vista/7" (kinda odd as Steam client no longer supports WinXP), and while the BFG Edition on GOG lists "System: Windows 7 / 8 / 10" there are users complaining the game simply wouldn't start under a modern (2021) PC. I don't own the game so I can't verify its compatibility on modern machines, though.

user33331 wrote on 2022-05-02, 06:34:

I think all you need is Win98SE PCs(500-1500MHz) and a "modern" Win7/10 PC to play all sorts of games.
These O/Ss are unnecessary middlemen: Win95, Win2000/Me, WinXP, WinVista, Win8.

All "modern" Windows after Vista are NT 6.x in their cores (Win10 has the version number "leaped forward" by skipping 7-9 but is still "6.4" inside). WinXP (NT 5.1) was the first "consumer-friendly" NT build that dominated OS market from 2003 to 2011, with the peak at 76.1% market share in January 2007. It was popular for many good reasons.

user33331 wrote on 2022-05-02, 06:34:

How many games really need WinXP ?

How many games really need Win98SE?

dormcat wrote:

IMHO most DirectX 9 games are more suitable under WinXP

Most DirectX 8.0 games more likely.

This rarely gets mentioned so I figure I'll say it here... the Nforce platform is amazing for XP era machines. Nvidia used unified drivers for everything on the board and they still host the drivers on their site. Getting one of these systems up and running is literally one install and has fantastic performance for the day. I prefer the Athlons from that era, but the platform eventually supported Intel as well.

dormcat wrote on 2022-05-02, 11:54:

It was popular for many good reasons.

Heck, I still use XP64 as my daily driver. (I also have a Windows 10 machine, mind you, but I greatly prefer my XP64 rig.) Regressed93 had mentioned wanting to build a High-End Windows XP gaming PC eventually, and I had thought about sharing my rig's specs to give him an idea of what's possible for when he decides to go for it; she's got a lot of parts that were top of the line for 2015. I owe a lot to folks at MSFN and similar communities for making it possible, though I've heard tell of people who've gotten XP working on even newer hardware.

But as far as an acceptable XP system for early 00's gaming goes ... Regressed93, have you tried exploring Craigslist for any second-hand systems or parts? $85 USD for a system that old does seem a bit much. Last year when Fry's Electronics shut down, I was able to score one of the corporate machines for $15 USD. Gigabye GA-F2A68HM-DS2H motherboard, 8 GB of DDR2 RAM, AMD A8-7650K CPU. It was a lucky find, but you could probably find others willing to sell old machines from that era for similar.

OP, Socket A is not high-end Windows XP at all. It's the total opposite. High end for XP is something like a Intel 2500k with GTX 700 series.

Socket A can be perfect for 98 or early XP era, depending on the chipset and video card. An XP system ought not be worried about any of the legacy things like table fog, so really, the faster the better for card. Anything DX8 or newer ought to be fine with Windows XP.

My personal preference breakdown for Windows versions needed:
Windows 98 for Games up to around 99 using 99/00 hardware. Directx 7 system. Voodoo cards do best here.
Windows XP for Games from 98 to about 07ish. Newest (compatible) hardware is around 2012ish. Directx 9 system.
Modern Windows for anything beyond XP years.

Edit: Corrected... Cause I'm an old goofball that dislikes misinformation.

ptr1ck wrote on 2022-05-02, 16:52:

Windows 98 for Games up to around 98 using 99/00 hardware. Directx 7 system. Voodoo cards do best here.

There are a few games made in 1999 and 2000 which use table fog and paletted textures though. Not many of course, so they are more like an exception than the norm. Notable examples include Thief 2 and Final Fantasy 8.

My personal cutoff point for Win98 is 2001. Anything newer than that is better played on WinXP.

Windows XP for Games from 98 to about 03/04. Newest (compatible) hardware is around 2012ish. Directx 9 system.

You're missing out on the last couple of years of EAX support if you play anything from 2005 and onward on a modern system. That's why I like to stretch the WinXP era up to 2007.

Joseph_Joestar wrote:

You're missing out on the last couple of years of EAX support if you play anything from 2005 and onward on a modern system. That's why I like to stretch the WinXP era up to 2007.

A lot of that does not use DirectSound3D and instead works with OpenAL, which is perfectly fine in Vista+ environment. Case and point - original Bioshock.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2022-05-02, 17:10:

A lot of that does not use DirectSound3D and instead works with OpenAL, which is perfectly fine in Vista+ environment. Case and point - original Bioshock.

Not everything though, most games from 2005 and 2006 use EAX proper. Vista didn't arrive until late 2006, early 2007.

But yes, if a game supports OpenAL, it's generally fine to run it on a modern system.