Cypher321 wrote on 2023-09-01, 18:54:

[*]GPU: 6800 (Ultra?) - last NVidia GPU to support Win9X so seems like obvious choice. Will plan on using AGP for Win98.
[*]Memory: Would having more than 512 mb be a problem for the Win98 portion of the dual boot? My default would be to put in 4gb to max out for winxp.

1.) It has been said many times on these forums that the GF 6000 series drivers on Win 9X are problematic; while I can't personally confirm that, I will nevertheless boldly suggest that you at least consider some equivalent Radeon instead. ATI did eventually get their drivers mostly there, it just took quite a while. (...much like AMD these days!)

2.) You can install Win 98 while having only at most 512 MB of RAM in there, then patch it to work with more RAM, and then take it to 4 GB. My other 98SE machine has 2 GB, though Win 98SE only sees 1 GB of that. I installed both the unofficial service pack and R. Loew's mempatch, so I don't know, which one is to thank for that... but anyway, either one should do to get it working, I think. Whether 98SE sees the whole 4 GB or not is pointless, even 512 MB is overkill for it.

My question - why not aim for two systems? You can build a monster XP system with a C2Q or sandy/ivy bridge, etc and a dramatically faster GPU, for... well, less money than a decent Win98 setup. And dual boot 7/10/"11" too if you wanted.

And if you go with two systems, you can go a bit older on the video card for the 98 system and probably get better results. That being said, good video cards for 98 seem... pricy... these days.

amigopi wrote on 2023-09-01, 19:45:

Cypher321 wrote on 2023-09-01, 18:54:

[*]GPU: 6800 (Ultra?) - last NVidia GPU to support Win9X so seems like obvious choice. Will plan on using AGP for Win98.
[*]Memory: Would having more than 512 mb be a problem for the Win98 portion of the dual boot? My default would be to put in 4gb to max out for winxp.

1.) It has been said many times on these forums that the GF 6000 series drivers on Win 9X are problematic; while I can't personally confirm that, I will nevertheless boldly suggest that you at least consider some equivalent Radeon instead. ATI did eventually get their drivers mostly there, it just took quite a while. (...much like AMD these days!)

Good to know - I haven't gotten to research the 'pain factor' of drivers yet so I'm glad you pointed that out. From a cursory search, it looks like the best card for win98 is going to be an X800/X850. Time to get cracking with the research on those!

My question - why not aim for two systems? You can build a monster XP system with a C2Q or sandy/ivy bridge, etc and a dramatically faster GPU, for... well, less money than a decent Win98 setup. And dual boot 7/10/"11" too if you wanted.

And if you go with two systems, you can go a bit older on the video card for the 98 system and probably get better results. That being said, good video cards for 98 seem... pricy... these days.

My concern with two systems (besides having to locate twice the parts) is that it'll be a bit too much for him. I have multiple systems myself since I'm into the hobby but for him I think the ideal is going to be a one-stop shop. That being said, there may be an argument for a Windows XP system and just let him deal with compatibility mode/DOS Box. I'll have to think about as that would help me pull in some RTS games in the late XP to early Win7 era that I doubt he's played before.

Cypher321 wrote on 2023-09-01, 22:41:

My concern with two systems (besides having to locate twice the parts) is that it'll be a bit too much for him. I have multiple systems myself since I'm into the hobby but for him I think the ideal is going to be a one-stop shop. That being said, there may be an argument for a Windows XP system and just let him deal with compatibility mode/DOS Box. I'll have to think about as that would help me pull in some RTS games in the late XP to early Win7 era that I doubt he's played before.

I don't know what your local market is like, but here at least, parts for a nice XP machine are plentiful. 7970s for GPU, C2Qs with P43/P45 boards or Sandy/Ivy Bridge boards and CPUs, etc. Those parts are all new enough, not to mention the general stagnation of the last decade, that plenty of people are just upgrading away from them now...

Now, meanwhile, some parts for a nice 98SE system are near unobtainium...

While its true that the 6800 Ultra is supported on Win98 it is also true that you will get nothing but problems with it on that platform, and it will be woefully under powered for XP when you consider it can use up to and including the 980Ti.
Considering the games you can play on XP I would recommend a card a lot more powerful than Win98 could ever use properly.

With Win98 and XP you are trying to dual boot ice and fire.
It will work, but it will never work properly and you will never get out what you put into either system.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-09-02, 15:42:

With Win98 and XP you are trying to dual boot ice and fire.
It will work, but it will never work properly and you will never get out what you put into either system.

...unless, of course, the aim is an "early XP" sort of build, in which case something like a FX 5600 or a Radeon 9600 would be quite suitable, I think. (Both are 2003 cards.)

Well, whatever, I realize that isn't the OP's aim.

...but still, if one does go for a "late XP" kind of build with a relatively modern system, then why stop there..? Shouldn't the games that require XP also run on Windows 7 or even 10 or 11?

amigopi wrote on 2023-09-02, 15:49:

...but still, if one does go for a "late XP" kind of build with a relatively modern system, then why stop there..? Shouldn't the games that require XP also run on Windows 7 or even 10 or 11?

They might, but you lose native EAX support on Windows Vista and up. You either need tools like Creative's ALchemy or third-party wrappers like DOSAL to restore it, and that doesn't always work perfectly. Additionally, some games use intrusive copy protection schemes (e.g. StarForce) which don't work anything newer than WinXP, so you need to find a way to bypass that.

To the OP, another alternative is to use a newer PCIe card for WinXP (e.g. a GTX 960) and a PCI card for Win98 (e.g. a Matrox G450). I haven't tried this myself, but some other people on this forum do have similar setups.

Nice one! Thanks for the free lesson, Joseph. "Learn something old every day", eh?

amigopi wrote on 2023-09-02, 15:49:

Well, whatever, I realize that isn't the OP's aim.

...but still, if one does go for a "late XP" kind of build with a relatively modern system, then why stop there..? Shouldn't the games that require XP also run on Windows 7 or even 10 or 11?

... and I'm sure many "late XP" systems are dual-boots with 7/10 or unsupported 11. Especially at the current price of SSDs...

The question, I guess, is this - is there anything that runs on "early XP" that won't run on "late XP"? I actually did find one such example - when I replaced a 5770 with a 7970, NFS PU stopped working (which was mildly annoying since that game was half the motivation for the whole retro XP box project). But really, calling NFS PU "early XP" is a stretch - that was really a 98SE game from EA's "we don't support NT, so don't try to run our games on Win2000" era that was always a bit dicey on XP, even back in the day on the not-so-ol' GF3 Ti500. (Note - they released a patch in 2003 for better XP compatibility. I couldn't tell you if I had that patch back in the day...)

But if anything from early XP era runs just fine on "late XP", then why wouldn't you want to run it faster/better on a "late XP" machine? Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you want, say, a hotburst Pentium 4/D with a GF6x00 if you can have a C2Q or newer with an AMD 7970 and have the same software compatibility? Higher performance, cheaper parts, fewer compatibility issues with, say, new SSDs, etc., lower power consumption, lower noise, etc?

Like, honestly, I suspect I could go out today and pick up an ivy bridge motherboard with a 3570k or a 3770k for $150-200CAD used, maybe less, an AMD 7970 for $100CAD used, the price has plunged on new DDR3 RAM, a 960 gig SSD for $60CAD new, then the question is simply whether you want a new or used case/PSU/ODD/etc. Good luck finding a GF4 Ti4200 on eBay for $100CAD, let alone anything higher performance from that era.

So... here is how I would frame the question - are there any DX7/8/etc games that run well on early XP hardware that will not be happy/pretty/etc on later XP hardware from ~2011? And if there are and you want to build a retro box for those games... do you really want XP or do you want to go maybe one year older in your hardware and go 98SE, keeping in mind your ~2003-4 98SE hardware will dual boot into XP just fine if necessary? Although, there might be a bit of a sweet-spot price-wise for ~2005-6 era hardware that's just too new for 98SE but too mediocre for a serious XP-era build (e.g. i915/945 boards with P4s or the 7xxx/8xxx GeForce cards), so if you are only targetting a few games that are known to be happy in early XP but not late XP hardware, you could save some serious money by building a rig that isn't good for 98SE.

But... otherwise, yes... you get to the point where most games in the "Steam era" will run fine in 7/10/11 on brand new hardware, at least if you get the version on Steam rather than the version on your 2006 DVD with some now-broken copy protection. But isn't that an additional argument for the late XP dual boot system?

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-02, 16:26:

So... here is how I would frame the question - are there any DX7/8/etc games that run well on early XP hardware that will not be happy/pretty/etc on later XP hardware from ~2011?

The original Splinter Cell and the first Gothic game are two examples that I personally know of. Both have graphical glitches on cards newer than a GeForce 4 Ti. Those aren't serious issues, and the games will still run ok on newer hardware, but with reduced visual quality. Note that I'm talking about the base games + official patches, without third-party fixes or wrappers. Some of these issues can be addressed with those, but probably not on WinXP.

If you want some visual examples, Phil has a series of videos on Splinter Cell, while I made a screenshot comparison of Gothic's missing inventory icons here.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-02, 16:37:

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-02, 16:26:

So... here is how I would frame the question - are there any DX7/8/etc games that run well on early XP hardware that will not be happy/pretty/etc on later XP hardware from ~2011?

The original Splinter Cell and the first Gothic game are two examples that I personally know of. Both have graphical glitches on cards newer than a GeForce 4 Ti. Those aren't serious issues, and the games will still run ok on newer hardware, but with reduced visual quality. Note that I'm talking about the base games + official patches, without third-party fixes or wrappers. Some of these issues can be addressed with those, but probably not on WinXP.

How well do those run on 98SE, assuming a GF4 Ti or an ATI 9700/9800?

(Also, there's a steam version of the original Splinter Cell - has it addressed this?)

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-02, 16:42:

How well do those run on 98SE, assuming a GF4 Ti or an ATI 9700/9800?

Splinter Cell is a special case, since it was ported from the original Xbox. It used a technique called "Shadow Buffers" to get the best visual quality, but that's only properly supported on GeForce 3 and GeForce 4 Ti cards. The GeForce FX series can handle it too, with some very minor glitches, as Phil points out in his video. But going any higher than that breaks the visuals in various ways. ATi cards never supported this feature.

As to your question, yes, you can play Splinter Cell on Win98 with that kind of hardware. Same for Gothic. They are fairly demanding games though, so you'd need something along the lines of an AthlonXP or better for smooth gameplay.

(Also, there's a steam version of the original Splinter Cell - has it addressed this?)

Nope. AFAIK, the only way to fix it at this time is to use a wrapper like dgVoodoo2. BTW, this also goes for the second game in the series: Pandora Tomorrow, which uses the same engine. Phil has some videos on that as well.

amigopi wrote on 2023-09-02, 15:49:

...unless, of course, the aim is an "early XP" sort of build, in which case something like a FX 5600 or a Radeon 9600 would be q […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-09-02, 15:42:

With Win98 and XP you are trying to dual boot ice and fire.
It will work, but it will never work properly and you will never get out what you put into either system.

...unless, of course, the aim is an "early XP" sort of build, in which case something like a FX 5600 or a Radeon 9600 would be quite suitable, I think. (Both are 2003 cards.)

Well, whatever, I realize that isn't the OP's aim.

...but still, if one does go for a "late XP" kind of build with a relatively modern system, then why stop there..? Shouldn't the games that require XP also run on Windows 7 or even 10 or 11?

Considering the text of the original post then thats an assumption I wasnt going to make, especially considering a 6800 Ultra was mentioned and a 6800 Ultra wouldnt be considered as an "early XP" card, an FX5600 or Radeon 9600 would be, but theyre not 6800 Ultras.

Win7 isnt a requirement, Win98 and XP is.

I can understand you wanting to disagree with me on it but you could do it without adding your own requirements.

Dual booting Win98 and XP is like mixing ice and fire, its not that it wont work, as it clearly will, it is that you wont get the best out of either of them on the same hardware. Or maybe better to say you wont get the best out of XP on Win98 hardware.
I mean a graphics card that is considered very powerful for Win98 will be mediocre on XP. Even if you dont go for a 980Ti, then a 750Ti, 480, GTX 285... how far down are you willing to go until you realise your just not getting as much as you can out of XP with an FX5*** or similar card.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-02, 16:01:

amigopi wrote on 2023-09-02, 15:49:

...but still, if one does go for a "late XP" kind of build with a relatively modern system, then why stop there..? Shouldn't the games that require XP also run on Windows 7 or even 10 or 11?

They might, but you lose native EAX support on Windows Vista and up. You either need tools like Creative's ALchemy or third-party wrappers like DOSAL to restore it, and that doesn't always work perfectly. Additionally, some games use intrusive copy protection schemes (e.g. StarForce) which don't work anything newer than WinXP, so you need to find a way to bypass that.

To the OP, another alternative is to use a newer PCIe card for WinXP (e.g. a GTX 960) and a PCI card for Win98 (e.g. a Matrox G450). I haven't tried this myself, but some other people on this forum do have similar setups.

Thats an idea that would actually work.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-09-03, 01:52:

Dual booting Win98 and XP is like mixing ice and fire, its not that it wont work, as it clearly will, it is that you wont get the best out of either of them on the same hardware. Or maybe better to say you wont get the best out of XP on Win98 hardware.
I mean a graphics card that is considered very powerful for Win98 will be mediocre on XP. Even if you dont go for a 980Ti, then a 750Ti, 480, GTX 285... how far down are you willing to go until you realise your just not getting as much as you can out of XP with an FX5*** or similar card.

Basically, you're losing... up to ~12 years... of GPU improvements. The GTX 960 (last card with official XP drivers) came out in 2015, the FX 5600 came out in 2003 (and was not exactly NVIDIA's greatest moment - I admit that I was quite shocked at how prized the FX cards are in the retro community when, at the time, everybody ran ATI 9700/9800s. The 5xxx cards were NVIDIA's first flop, and a spectacular flop at that. Didn't the 5800 basically get pulled from the shelves due to the noisy two-slot cooler?). I presume the same is roughly true on the ATI/AMD side... well, maybe there's only about 9 years between the X850 and the R9 270X.

And the crazy thing, too, is when you consider cost. There are plenty of gamers today upgrading from 7970s, R9 270Xes, 960/980s, etc. and the value of used modern GPUs has plunged ever since the crypto thing fizzled. Win98 SE-friendly GPUs went into retro territory over a decade ago, you're not going to find somebody who finally saved up enough money for an RTX 40xx selling an FX5600 on Facebook Marketplace for cheap. I put a 7970 in an XP box. For the price of that 7970 from a domestic seller on eBay, I don't know what I can find in Win98 AGP land? A GF4 Ti4200 from eastern Europe, maybe? Playing, say, a ~2004-era XP game, how does the 7970 compare to a Ti4200?

Idea 1 : Nice DOS Laptop + Great XP machine
Idea 2 : Great XP machine + emulating DOS on it

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-02, 16:01:

amigopi wrote on 2023-09-02, 15:49:

...but still, if one does go for a "late XP" kind of build with a relatively modern system, then why stop there..? Shouldn't the games that require XP also run on Windows 7 or even 10 or 11?

To the OP, another alternative is to use a newer PCIe card for WinXP (e.g. a GTX 960) and a PCI card for Win98 (e.g. a Matrox G450). I haven't tried this myself, but some other people on this forum do have similar setups.

I like this idea both from a build standpoint and a chance to try something different from my normal builds. I have some cards in inventory that I can try out the setup with which will help budget-wise too. One question - did you mention Matrox arbitrarily, aside from being PCI, or for a specific reason? My default would be a radeon/nvidia mix since that's what I mostly have on hand unless there's a specific reason to use another brand.

Cypher321 wrote on 2023-09-03, 04:44:

I like this idea both from a build standpoint and a chance to try something different from my normal builds. I have some cards in inventory that I can try out the setup with which will help budget-wise too. One question - did you mention Matrox arbitrarily, aside from being PCI, or for a specific reason? My default would be a radeon/nvidia mix since that's what I mostly have on hand unless there's a specific reason to use another brand.

No particular reason other than that was the card that I've seen being used in such a build. You can likely go with a PCI card from 3DFX/Nvidia/ATi according to your preference.

However, I would caution against using a Nvidia card newer than the GeForce FX for Win98. The later drivers which newer cards require have compatibility issues with some games.

Cypher321 wrote on 2023-09-03, 04:44:

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-09-02, 16:01:

amigopi wrote on 2023-09-02, 15:49:

...but still, if one does go for a "late XP" kind of build with a relatively modern system, then why stop there..? Shouldn't the games that require XP also run on Windows 7 or even 10 or 11?

To the OP, another alternative is to use a newer PCIe card for WinXP (e.g. a GTX 960) and a PCI card for Win98 (e.g. a Matrox G450). I haven't tried this myself, but some other people on this forum do have similar setups.

I like this idea both from a build standpoint and a chance to try something different from my normal builds. I have some cards in inventory that I can try out the setup with which will help budget-wise too. One question - did you mention Matrox arbitrarily, aside from being PCI, or for a specific reason? My default would be a radeon/nvidia mix since that's what I mostly have on hand unless there's a specific reason to use another brand.

There is a reason for it.
ATI and nvidia dont mix well on the same computer, where as a Matrox and ATi/nVidia usually work ok with each other.

Unless you just dont bother to load the drivers for one of the cards at all in the system...

People usually have a mental block with yellow exclamation marks in device manager.

I'm going to assume your dad is more interested in the games then the hardware running them.
Also the 2 games you mention are RTS which are not as demanding as 3D shooters or driving games so it may well be an underpowered late XP graphics card doesn't really matter.
I'd also check Steam out first as Tibirum Dawn (and Red Alert) is included in C&C Remastered with alot of nice improvements, Supreme Commander 2 I'm not familiar with but is also on Steam.
If it was me I'd make a list of games you want to install
Cross off your list any that are available on Steam, they can work on his daily driver.
Check how many of the remaining Don't work in XP It may be you don't actually need 98.
If you do need 98 find the most demanding game in XP and try and match it's requirements as best you can but your going to have to make compromises.

I did something similar for my dad but he never really understood or could be bothered dual booting into different OS's for different games. It got much more use as a single OS PC and some games he just cant play any more.