KT7AGuy wrote:

I always thought that a 3.3ghz C2D E8600 was supposed to be quite a bit faster than my 3.3ghz Phenom II 560 BE. No?

Being a 45nm Wolfdale, the e8600 may be a smidgen faster than the PhII, but they're going to be fairly evenly matched.

As an owner of two 4GHz systems (a 65nm Q6700 and a Phenom II x6 1090T), I can say that it's pretty much a tie between the two processors. The Phenom II usually comes out slightly ahead of the Q6700, but it's very, very close. For example:

Here's Doom 3 running on Win7 @ 1024x768 "Ultra"
Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4070MHz, GTX 680 = 351.6 fps

Core 2 Quad Q6700 @ 4000MHz, GTX 970 = 349.1 fps

BTW, Doom 3 only uses 2 cores at most, so the Phenom's additional cores are not giving it any kind of an advantage.

Thanks for that! I guess they're more closely matched than I previously thought.

I worry about the day when Steam decides to revoke the ability to play their games on XP. My plan is to set up a relatively simple WinXP gaming install, install every relevant Steam game, put Steam into offline mode, and figure out what else is required to actually prevent Steam from ever phoning home (I think it does that periodically even in offline mode). If I can get it into a state that I'm satisfied is a permanently working offline WinXP gaming system, then I will image the hard drive.
Unfortunately that image will probably be picky about what hardware it will boot with, so that's a potential hassle in the future. There's also the question of whether the concept even works. I don't know if restoring an entire installed disk image actually keeps Steam from recognizing that it's on a "new" system and requiring a login (which may be impossible in the future).

I haven't actually tried to source parts for any "retro" high end XP gaming setups, I'm just still using the Phenom2 machine that I bought when it was new, and it still has XP on it. Other than that system, my other motherboards are less powerful and won't match up to the Phenom2/Core2 era.

shamino wrote:

I worry about the day when Steam decides to revoke the ability to play their games on XP. My plan is to set up a relatively simple WinXP gaming install, install every relevant Steam game, put Steam into offline mode, and figure out what else is required to actually prevent Steam from ever phoning home (I think it does that periodically even in offline mode). If I can get it into a state that I'm satisfied is a permanently working offline WinXP gaming system, then I will image the hard drive.
Unfortunately that image will probably be picky about what hardware it will boot with, so that's a potential hassle in the future. There's also the question of whether the concept even works. I don't know if restoring an entire installed disk image actually keeps Steam from recognizing that it's on a "new" system and requiring a login (which may be impossible in the future).

I haven't actually tried to source parts for any "retro" high end XP gaming setups, I'm just still using the Phenom2 machine that I bought when it was new, and it still has XP on it. Other than that system, my other motherboards are less powerful and won't match up to the Phenom2/Core2 era.

This, I am scared shitless of this. I already hate the fact that there is no way to get Steam games that happen to only work with Win9x on a Win9x system.

Rhuwyn,

I'm pretty sure Steam still works on XP. I'm not sure what you mean.

Edit: I was confused and thought you meant WinXP, not Win9x.

What Win9x-only games does Steam even have?

Standard Def Steve wrote:

As an owner of two 4GHz systems (a 65nm Q6700 and a Phenom II x6 1090T), I can say that it's pretty much a tie between the two processors. The Phenom II usually comes out slightly ahead of the Q6700, but it's very, very close. For example:

That is great information 😀

I'm a big fan of the AM3+ platform for XP gaming. With Intel there are just too many sockets for my liking.

shamino wrote:

I worry about the day when Steam decides to revoke the ability to play their games on XP. My plan is to set up a relatively simple WinXP gaming install, install every relevant Steam game, put Steam into offline mode, and figure out what else is required to actually prevent Steam from ever phoning home (I think it does that periodically even in offline mode).

That is indeed coming. Try building a period correct machine with XP vanilla, or XP SP1 and run Steam...

GOG is the way to go. A shame they don't have many games, but I haven't bought anything from Steam in a long time because I know that one day we will be out of luck.

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

...GOG is the way to go. A shame they don't have many games, but I haven't bought anything from Steam in a long time because I know that one day we will be out of luck.

Same - I avoid the online drm scene with rare exception. With luck more and more XP era games will migrate to GOG as they loose mainstream $$$ appeal and people willing to go along with the "game licensing" model for retro titles.

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

GOG is the way to go. A shame they don't have many games, but I haven't bought anything from Steam in a long time because I know that one day we will be out of luck.

I agree, but there are still a few Steam games that run in DOSBox and those are safe from the eventual blackout. 🤣.

In theory I like GOG better for a lot of reasons. Mainly the lack of DRM. Gives us more control over what we own. But, the problem is I am so much more invested in Steam. I am getting close to 1000 games due to crazy steam sales, and while GOG does have sales it's no where near as often or as heavily discounted as steam's pricing.

As far as Windows9x is concerned. Honestly, it's been so long since I looked into it I couldn't tell you at this point, I just know I am still sore over when they dropped win9x support and there were a lot of games that needed all kinds of pathes to get working on Windows XP. The one game I know won't run on anything but Windows 98 Shogo: Mobile Armer Devision, but Steam never had that I don't think.

Yea good point about DOSBox games 😀

Also yes, if you got a massive Steam library, and I think most of us do, then this will hurt.

With 9x, even GOG isn't that great. The installers won't work, but there are workarounds. Many games will work after this, but not all. Often it's better to get a copy from eBay, and sometimes even cheaper.

But a ton of GOG games run great on 9x. Shogo like you say, runs straight from the folder. All the Quake games run and many others. But it's not straight forward and you got to muck around a bit.

The other issue is that many GOG games don't run under Windows 10, or with real issues 😁

So I guess they have their hands full...

Has Steam ever come forward regarding this issue and said one way or the other?

I too try to avoid buying Steam titles because I fear they will drop support for XP entirely. They gotta know this hurts business.

Is there an old version of the client that might still work with Win9x?

KT7AGuy wrote:

Has Steam ever come forward regarding this issue and said one way or the other?

I too try to avoid buying Steam titles because I fear they will drop support for XP entirely. They gotta know this hurts business.

Is there an old version of the client that might still work with Win9x?

I've wondered this myself. I think the problem is the installer is completely "online". You only download a small file that acts as a loader that downloads the rest of the client. So even if we found that old installer it probably wouldn't work.

I always avoided Steam because of this issue, but I finally gave in to play Skyrim. Since then I've also bought Fallout New Vegas. Fortunately most of the other games I have on there are either not very important to me or I can re-buy them on GoG if I have to, but I'd be much happier if I could keep them all.

If Steam wanted to set people at ease I think the best solution they could offer would be to release a simplified client for "deprecated" OSes. That client would still connect to the server to authorize you to play your games but otherwise stays offline. It wouldn't implement all the rest of the fancy features of the advertising portal, so no integrated browser, no advertising, no ability to buy games, no reviews, etc, just a minimal client that lets you keep playing your library. Presuming that their networking protocols are mature then such a simplified client would almost never need updating. It would only need an update if the DRM protocol changes, because nothing else is implemented. As far as I'm concerned they ought to be willing to perform such minimal updates if and when they're actually necessary. I don't think it's too much to expect at the other end of all these transactions that people have paid for.

It's in Steam's own interest to uphold the notion that people have nothing to fear from DRM. I'd be less resistant to buying games from them if they had a track record of keeping games playable on deprecated OSes after they are no longer being targeted for new game sales.

shamino wrote:

I always avoided Steam because of this issue, but I finally gave in to play Skyrim. Since then I've also bought Fallout New Vegas. Fortunately most of the other games I have on there are either not very important to me or I can re-buy them on GoG if I have to, but I'd be much happier if I could keep them all.

If Steam wanted to set people at ease I think the best solution they could offer would be to release a simplified client for "deprecated" OSes. That client would still connect to the server to authorize you to play your games but otherwise stays offline. It wouldn't implement all the rest of the fancy features of the advertising portal, so no integrated browser, no advertising, no ability to buy games, no reviews, etc, just a minimal client that lets you keep playing your library. Presuming that their networking protocols are mature then such a simplified client would almost never need updating. It would only need an update if the DRM protocol changes, because nothing else is implemented. As far as I'm concerned they ought to be willing to perform such minimal updates if and when they're actually necessary. I don't think it's too much to expect at the other end of all these transactions that people have paid for.

It's in Steam's own interest to uphold the notion that people have nothing to fear from DRM. I'd be less resistant to buying games from them if they had a track record of keeping games playable on deprecated OSes after they are no longer being targeted for new game sales.

I practice fair use, if you buy a game/movie ect your allowed to have at least one copy, so my XP/98 Era steam games I usually got to a website and download an ISO for it, so I can use it on my retro machines legally, do it with my GOG games as well because their installer won't work on 98/ME

candle_86 wrote:

I practice fair use, if you buy a game/movie ect your allowed to have at least one copy, so my XP/98 Era steam games I usually got to a website and download an ISO for it, so I can use it on my retro machines legally, do it with my GOG games as well because their installer won't work on 98/ME

Your comment and the one I'm about to make I know are frowned on on this site. I would never advocate piracy, but my mantra is I support the developer until the developer stops supporting me. If I own a game legally but there is no way for me to actually access the game, well that's the developer/publisher's problem not mine.

It's not surprising, really. pentium 4 boxes are rather too slow for modern web browsing, games, etc.

Core 2 systems may have a large population of 32 bit Windows that may, sooner or later, run into the 4GB memory limit. I'd be surprised if this happened for a bit, but I can see it in the future.

I'm finally moving on from my high end Core2Quad system, a whole 2+ generations to Sandy Bridge EP..

Am I the only person who ran Windows XP for years on a single-core? It's got an Athlon XP 1800+ (1.53GHz), 512MB of RAM (DDR1) and old PATA drives like a DVD-RW and an 80GB Western Digital drive? I mean, the motherboard didn't even have USB 2.0 built-in! It had two USB 1.1 ports on it! Ran it with an ATI Radeon 7500 64MB AGP card in a 4x slot (MB only went up to 4x).

It's the PC I just picked up from my brother's house (2nd in my signature). Now it has 1GB of DDR1 RAM @166MHz and an ATI Radeon 9550 256MB AGP card. I kind-of wish I had a 9800XT, but that might be overkill on this board? Running Windows XP SP3 just fine. I also just added a USB 2.0 PCI card, so now I have 4 "high speed" ports available on the back.

Isn't the AMD Athlon XP, like, the equivalent of the Pentium 4? Or was it closer to a Pentium 3?

And I'm honestly considering getting a 600Mhz Katmai Pentium 3 for my Win98 build in order to push the Voodoo2 cards I got.

And I guess it's a good thing I still have my Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2 laptop. It's running Windows XP SP3 as well on a 250GB IDE Hard Drive, 2.1GHz Pentium M, 2GB DDR2-533, and a GeForce 7800GTX 256MB PCI-Express card. It was a BEAST of a laptop for its time. Plays Final Fantasy 11 on max settings like butter. Bought it mid-2005. If I could convert it to SSD, I would, but Windows XP doesn't support TRIM and only Kingston makes PATA SSDs, as far as I know.

Forget your crummy online game buying accounts.

What will you do when M$ pulled the plug on the windows xp activation servers?
Another resion why I hate XP and prefor 2k

FFXIhealer wrote:

Am I the only person who ran Windows XP for years on a single-core? It's got an Athlon XP 1800+ (1.53GHz), 512MB of RAM (DDR1) […]
Show full quote

Am I the only person who ran Windows XP for years on a single-core? It's got an Athlon XP 1800+ (1.53GHz), 512MB of RAM (DDR1) and old PATA drives like a DVD-RW and an 80GB Western Digital drive? I mean, the motherboard didn't even have USB 2.0 built-in! It had two USB 1.1 ports on it! Ran it with an ATI Radeon 7500 64MB AGP card in a 4x slot (MB only went up to 4x).

It's the PC I just picked up from my brother's house (2nd in my signature). Now it has 1GB of DDR1 RAM @166MHz and an ATI Radeon 9550 256MB AGP card. I kind-of wish I had a 9800XT, but that might be overkill on this board? Running Windows XP SP3 just fine. I also just added a USB 2.0 PCI card, so now I have 4 "high speed" ports available on the back.

Isn't the AMD Athlon XP, like, the equivalent of the Pentium 4? Or was it closer to a Pentium 3?

And I'm honestly considering getting a 600Mhz Katmai Pentium 3 for my Win98 build in order to push the Voodoo2 cards I got.

And I guess it's a good thing I still have my Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2 laptop. It's running Windows XP SP3 as well on a 250GB IDE Hard Drive, 2.1GHz Pentium M, 2GB DDR2-533, and a GeForce 7800GTX 256MB PCI-Express card. It was a BEAST of a laptop for its time. Plays Final Fantasy 11 on max settings like butter. Bought it mid-2005. If I could convert it to SSD, I would, but Windows XP doesn't support TRIM and only Kingston makes PATA SSDs, as far as I know.

An XP 1800+ is similar to a Pentium 4 2.0. Athlon XP didn't loose to PEntium 4 until the 800mhz FSB jump

I think we all ran XP on a single core during the early to mid life of XP. The multi-core phenomenon really changed desktop computing though and in most cases I think if your building an machine to cover the entire XP era you pretty much going to get a Dual core machine at the least.