VOGONS

Common searches


Reply 60 of 71, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
xcomcmdr wrote on 2020-06-17, 09:30:
All of that is true, except the part "Win9X runs under DOS". Win9X uses DOS as : a) a bootloader b) a compat layer (all of the a […]
Show full quote
darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 07:53:
The version of MS-DOS that is provided with Windows 98 SE (95 and 98 FE too) , whatever Microsoft,you, me or anyone may choose t […]
Show full quote

The version of MS-DOS that is provided with Windows 98 SE (95 and 98 FE too) , whatever Microsoft,you, me or anyone may choose to call it,
a) can be run standalone (without loading the Windows kernel)
b) can be booted entirely from a floppy disk
c) supports all DOS APIs
d) allows direct access to BIOS function calls
e) allows direct hardware access
f) runs in real mode by default
g) can run DOS compatible memory managers
h) is compatible with all DOS extenders that can run under the previous standalone version of DOS (6.22)
i) Runs essentially all DOS compatible software that can run under the previous standalone version of DOS (6.22), the exception being certain low-level disk utilities (because of the addition of FAT32 and the support for drives larger than 8.4GB).

All of that is true, except the part "Win9X runs under DOS". Win9X uses DOS as :
a) a bootloader
b) a compat layer (all of the above is thanks to that)

But other than that, it's very much like in Windows 3.X but extended since then :

Upon boot, it takes reign of the machine (that's why sometimes you STILL have to use the real thing for some games, because Windows does a lot to 'hide' itself but it cannot be perfect) with its own pre-emptive kernel (pre-emptive for Win32, cooperative for Win16/DOS stuff) that runs in protected mode, its own flat memory model (bye bye conventional memory, high mem, xms/ems and stuff), along with its own set of drivers and a lot of (incompatible with DOS) Win32 apps that all use its new API.

So overall :
"It's complicated."
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20 … 224-00/?p=24063

I agree with point a) (I had oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy ) and with point b), expect that I believe that it is not quite accurate to say that "all of the above is thanks to that", as it implies that, in a way, DOS depends on Windows 9x and that we have it to thank for its (DOS) featureset (whereas DOS was obviously there first).
I think I understand that what you meant by it was that DOS would not be there in its current form in Windows 9x had Microsoft not chosen to use it as a compatibility layer but, even then, a way to run DOS programs natively would still have needed to exist. Maybe its just me gleaning meaning where there wasn't meant to be any .

I also agree with the rest of yout post .

Reply 61 of 71, by tincup

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-06-16, 01:40:

You're saying the v5 has inferior IQ to the v3?

Ahaha... no I mentioned it - in a sort of off-topic ramble. From the Voodoo cards I have and use the V3 has the best IQ in my opinion - subjective of course. I love the V5 for all the things it does and it looks great too, but honestly the V3 turned my head with its clarity of image. It may just be the cards I have of course, but I think the V3 is underappreciated in that regard.

As a point of comparison I chose to dismantle my V2-SLI setup simply based on poor IQ. The added horsepower wasn't worth the rearward compatibility I wanted in the V2. The tradeoff wasn't necessary as the v3 or V5 are far far better options if glide performance is the main criteria. As mentioned in my first post up thread I use the V2 along with a "lowly" Rendtion card as my main 1996-1998/9 Glide/early 3D workhorse. And a V5 box for the ultimate glide experience. But a dedicated V3 rig wouldn't be shabby at all - it basically performs like a V2-SLI but with silk smooth IQ.

Last edited by tincup on 2020-06-17, 15:43. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 62 of 71, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
tincup wrote on 2020-06-17, 15:30:
maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-06-16, 01:40:

You're saying the v5 has inferior IQ to the v3?

I mentioned it - in a sort of off-topic ramble. From the Voodoo cards I have and use the V3 has the best IQ in my opinion - subjective of course. I love the V5 for all the things it does and it looks great too, but honestly the V3 turned my head with its clarity of image. It may just be the cards I have of course, but I think the V3 is underappreciated in that regard.

Never had a Voodoo5, but my Voodoo 3 is incredibly sharp, even at 1600x1200@60Hz running through OSSC in passthrough (VGA to HDMI) . It actually looks better than when connected directly to VGA input on the monitor, . I have not run double-blind tests, but it looks indistinguishable from a native DVI/HDMI card in that setup to my eyes . The analogue stage of the Voodoo 3 is definitely well made .

Reply 63 of 71, by tincup

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 15:43:
tincup wrote on 2020-06-17, 15:30:
maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-06-16, 01:40:

You're saying the v5 has inferior IQ to the v3?

I mentioned it - in a sort of off-topic ramble. From the Voodoo cards I have and use the V3 has the best IQ in my opinion - subjective of course. I love the V5 for all the things it does and it looks great too, but honestly the V3 turned my head with its clarity of image. It may just be the cards I have of course, but I think the V3 is underappreciated in that regard.

Never had a Voodoo5, but my Voodoo 3 is incredibly sharp, even at 1600x1200@60Hz running through OSSC in passthrough (VGA to HDMI) . It actually looks better than when connected directly to VGA input on the monitor, . I have not run double-blind tests, but it looks indistinguishable from a native DVI/HDMI card in that setup to my eyes . The analogue stage of the Voodoo 3 is definitely well made .

Yes. I run all my retro rigs through the VGA port on my modern flatscreen. At one point I had a cumbersome 4-port KVM setup and the card looked good setup that way too. I did away with the KVM as it was more of a hassle.

Reply 64 of 71, by martinot

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
athlon-power wrote on 2020-01-12, 23:37:
Not joking about this, I was looking up to see if my specs checked out with the kind of computer I was building (for the most pa […]
Show full quote

Not joking about this, I was looking up to see if my specs checked out with the kind of computer I was building (for the most part, they do), and I have ran into Gateway's ads for whatever computers they had at the time.

Multiple times, in different ads from different months, Gateway sells the TNT2 in higher-end setups, the Voodoo in lower end setups, and allows an "upgrade," to the TNT2 from a Voodoo 3.

https://books.google.com/books?id=SLTy_WcWY_s … %2032mb&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=cr7PRid0y5U … %2032mb&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=FWcSP5-fyYk … %2032mb&f=false

This is all Gateway, so maybe this was some idiotic concoction by their marketing team to sell the 32MB card as better because the number was bigger than 16MB. The problem I have with this is that at least with games that support Glide, performance is much greater on the Voodoo 3 than the TNT2. I have a TNT2 32MB, the real one, with a 128 bit memory bus, and I want a Voodoo 3 3000 because of Glide. The CPU load is reduced significantly, allowing it to do whatever the hell it wants, so boom, more performance. I'd hate to be the guy that was going to get one of the models with a Voodoo 3 in it and "upgraded," to the TNT2.

I get that the Voodoo 3 didn't have 32-bit color capability, but the cost of performance just for true 32-bit color seems a bit unnecessary. I don't know, maybe I'm talking about things I know nothing about, but I just found this odd and thought I'd share and maybe get some answers and/or figure out why I'm wrong on this.

When I at the time was looking for my first 3D graphics card I choose TNT2 over Voofoo 3 as I prefered 32-bit, better standard support for OpenGL and DX3D (did no like HW manufacture proprietary standars like Glide) and better drivers for my main OS at the time (NT4). For me TNT2 was the clear winner, and I was very happy with that choice of direction.

Reply 65 of 71, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
martinot wrote on 2020-06-22, 11:43:

When I at the time was looking for my first 3D graphics card I choose TNT2 over Voofoo 3 as I prefered 32-bit, better standard support for OpenGL and DX3D (did no like HW manufacture proprietary standars like Glide) and better drivers for my main OS at the time (NT4). For me TNT2 was the clear winner, and I was very happy with that choice of direction.

You used NT4.0 and were worried about D3D drivers? Did NT4.0 even have D3D? I don't think it had DirectX beyond 3.0 or something?

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 67 of 71, by matze79

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

No, NT 4.0 only has Software Emulation in D3D.

Maximum is unofficial DirectX 5.0.
But no Hardware D3D at all.

https://dosreloaded.de - The German Retro DOS PC Community
https://www.retroianer.de - under constructing since ever

Co2 - for a endless Summer

Reply 68 of 71, by martinot

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
matze79 wrote on 2020-06-22, 11:54:

No, NT 4.0 only has Software Emulation in D3D.

Maximum is unofficial DirectX 5.0.
But no Hardware D3D at all.

Your correct. It was OpenGL that was HW acc 3D in NT.

The problem with the Voodoo card drivers at the time was that they had worse/poorer support for full OpenGL applications (used for 3D apps, and not only games) compared to nVidia. Another problem I heard from others (did not test myself) was that the Glide drivers for NT4 did not work so well in SMP machines (had a dual Celeron 300A SMP-hacked machine).

So better driver support was the main reason for me to go with Nvidia over options from 3DFX and ATI (Matrox also had excellent drivers at the time, but never any good at 3D).

Reply 69 of 71, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I don't think even the TNT2 OpenGL drivers at the time were feature complete for workstation applications.. I mean someone can come out and tell me I'm wrong but you couldn't run say Maya on a TNT2.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 70 of 71, by martinot

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
appiah4 wrote on 2020-06-22, 12:33:

I don't think even the TNT2 OpenGL drivers at the time were feature complete for workstation applications.. I mean someone can come out and tell me I'm wrong but you couldn't run say Maya on a TNT2.

Never used Maya, so can not comment on that one.

As with most software things the drivers got improved over time. They key thing was that the drivers Nividia had was extremely much better and more complete than those from 3DFX (which was pure garbage in comparison).

Could not afford any professional 3d cards (such as those from Intergraph and others), as I was a student at the time. For my limited budget the TNT2 was a really great choice and option!

Leading performance and great drivers, for the money. 😀

Reply 71 of 71, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
martinot wrote on 2020-06-22, 12:42:
Never used Maya, so can not comment on that one. […]
Show full quote
appiah4 wrote on 2020-06-22, 12:33:

I don't think even the TNT2 OpenGL drivers at the time were feature complete for workstation applications.. I mean someone can come out and tell me I'm wrong but you couldn't run say Maya on a TNT2.

Never used Maya, so can not comment on that one.

As with most software things the drivers got improved over time. They key thing was that the drivers Nividia had was extremely much better and more complete than those from 3DFX (which was pure garbage in comparison).

Could not afford any professional 3d cards (such as those from Intergraph and others), as I was a student at the time. For my limited budget the TNT2 was a really great choice and option!

Leading performance and great drivers, for the money. 😀

Oh, I get where you are coming from. I was a Mech. Engineering student and had to use I-DEAS (illegally) at home, and I remember 3D acceleration did not work on my Voodoo 3 at all, I only got it to work after ugrading to a GeForce2 MX later down the line. But even that was not perfect. Some functionality is better than none for sure, but neither setup was ideal.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.