VOGONS


Ideas for a DOS machine?

Topic actions

Reply 100 of 127, by Joseph_Joestar

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
ElectroSoldier wrote on 2025-01-05, 20:14:

What are the advantages of running a 386 or 486 over a Pentium MMX?

I'm not the right person to answer that, since I never owned a 386 or a 486. Like you, I started with a Pentium classic, running DOS 6.22 and Win 3.11.

Someone else might be able to provide a better answer.

PC#1: Pentium MMX 166 / Soyo SY-5BT / S3 Trio64V+ / Voodoo1 / YMF719 / AWE64 Gold / SC-155
PC#2: AthlonXP 2100+ / ECS K7VTA3 / Voodoo3 / Audigy2 / Vortex2
PC#3: Core 2 Duo E8600 / Foxconn P35AX-S / X800 / Audigy2 ZS
PC#4: i5-3570K / MSI Z77A-G43 / GTX 970 / X-Fi

Reply 101 of 127, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
VivienM wrote on 2025-01-05, 19:58:
Cosmic wrote on 2025-01-05, 18:29:
Regarding CF cards themselves, I've used a handful of Transcend, Cisco, and Swissbit CF cards with good success, some sample mod […]
Show full quote

Regarding CF cards themselves, I've used a handful of Transcend, Cisco, and Swissbit CF cards with good success, some sample model numbers:

  • CF150
  • SSD-C02G-4431
  • UB30STC4000CZ7-BTB-FCF
  • SFCF1024H1BK2MT-I-MO-553-SMA
  • CF220I / TS4GCF220I
  • CF180 / TS4GCF18IG16IK1

Okay, so Swissbit I can actually get... from sellers of electronic components like Mouser or Digikey. Pretty much all the others on your list - available used from China but that's about it. But... looking at ~$100CAD for an 4GB Swissbit C-56.

Is that just the price to pay for these things unless you want to gamble on used ones, or is this insanely highway robbery?

New idea - found some new transcend CF170 on eBay. US seller, if I buy a couple the price of shipping becomes half-reasonable. Seems a little less insane than the Swissbit card.

Reply 102 of 127, by Shponglefan

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
ElectroSoldier wrote on 2025-01-05, 20:14:

What are the advantages of running a 386 or 486 over a Pentium MMX?

Speaking from my own experience, I find running dedicated 386 or 486 machines allows one to hit specific CPU performance that might only be approximated using slowdown methods on faster systems. It's convenient to have a system that inherently plays speed sensitive games without needing to worry about throttling methods.

Depending on hardware combination, it can be possible to throttle a 386 or 486 even slower than a Pentium MMX. For example, my own 486 DX-33 can be slowed to the speed of an 8MHz 286 via disabling L1 cache and the throttle button.

Since 386 and 486 boards can be had with up to 8 ISA slots, they can be more conducive to using lots of ISA-based hardware (e.g. sound cards) compared to most Pentium boards.

Similarly, 486 boards also commonly had VLB slots which can be useful if one has VLB hardware they want to use.

386 and 486 boards also tend to have layouts that make using full-length cards easier to use. A lot of Pentium boards tend to obstruct things with heatsinks or CPU sockets.

Pentium 4 Multi-OS Build
486 DX4-100 with 6 sound cards
486 DX-33 with 5 sound cards

Reply 103 of 127, by chinny22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
ElectroSoldier wrote on 2025-01-05, 20:14:

What are the advantages of running a 386 or 486 over a Pentium MMX?

Apart from some very specific games eg Wing Commander wanting a 386/33 I'd say the real demand for earlier machines is more nostalgia or wanting to mess around with the hardware itself.

Reply 104 of 127, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

And... I just started watching the beginning of LGR's video on the Pixel x86. Just enough to google the thing and... now I am somewhat wondering whether I didn't go in the completely wrong direction.

Reply 105 of 127, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

The hardware doesn't seem "real" enough to be a great advantage over emulation to me. Given that you could get a MISTer setup for FPGA hardware emulation of the low end, and a Mini PC (beelink etc) that will run more hardware choice in software emulation, together for a similar price, it doesn't seem worth it. We will have to see if the ITX version improves flexibility though. There are possibly thin clients around that are equivalent and get snubbed for "not offering accessible 3D acceleration for 90s stuff or authentic sound options." and that go much cheaper. On the Goldilocks scale, it's Momma bear's porridge, won't scald you, but less pleasurable to eat than the one that's just right.

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Reply 106 of 127, by RetroPCCupboard

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
VivienM wrote on 2025-01-07, 00:16:

And... I just started watching the beginning of LGR's video on the Pixel x86. Just enough to google the thing and... now I am somewhat wondering whether I didn't go in the completely wrong direction.

I'm not sure I see the appeal. Especially at the asking price. Ok, so it's small, but it's less capable than getting true retro hardware, and is much more expensive.

Edit: I think more appealing would be one that's a mini laptop like the Pocket 386 and Pocket 8086. It least then it's got the excuse of portability for being small and limited in functionality.

Reply 107 of 127, by Shponglefan

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Having watched the LGR video on the Pixel x86, I don't really see the appeal either.

The faster model seems like it would be too crippled as a Windows 98 machine, lacking both 3D graphics and 3D audio options. The slower model seems like it could be okay for a DOS machine, but is still quite limited in terms of expansion.

What I'd love to see is a board with at least one PCI and one ISA slot for expansion cards, plus an IDE connector for a CD-ROM.

Pentium 4 Multi-OS Build
486 DX4-100 with 6 sound cards
486 DX-33 with 5 sound cards

Reply 108 of 127, by Cosmic

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
VivienM wrote on 2025-01-05, 19:58:
Cosmic wrote on 2025-01-05, 18:29:
Regarding CF cards themselves, I've used a handful of Transcend, Cisco, and Swissbit CF cards with good success, some sample mod […]
Show full quote

Regarding CF cards themselves, I've used a handful of Transcend, Cisco, and Swissbit CF cards with good success, some sample model numbers:

  • CF150
  • SSD-C02G-4431
  • UB30STC4000CZ7-BTB-FCF
  • SFCF1024H1BK2MT-I-MO-553-SMA
  • CF220I / TS4GCF220I
  • CF180 / TS4GCF18IG16IK1

Okay, so Swissbit I can actually get... from sellers of electronic components like Mouser or Digikey. Pretty much all the others on your list - available used from China but that's about it. But... looking at ~$100CAD for an 4GB Swissbit C-56.

Is that just the price to pay for these things unless you want to gamble on used ones, or is this insanely highway robbery?

I definitely understand the appeal of new cards! However if it helps any, I've only ever purchased used industrial CF cards and they've never been a problem. In fact, I have a couple more used small capacity Cisco CF cards coming from China now for my 386 project. Typically they come wiped, or with an empty partition. One batch of 4GB cards came with XP + some kind of casino operator software, which was interesting, but I just formatted them and went on my way. : )

Regarding the Pixel x86, I agree it's interesting but it doesn't appeal to me either... having my hands on real old hardware makes me happy. For me it's like 60% testing and experimenting with the hardware and 40% software and games :D

UMC UM8498: DX2-66 SX955 WB | 32MB FPM | GD5426 VLB | Win3.1/95
MVP3: 600MHz K6-III+ | 256MB SDRAM | MX440 AGP | 98SE/NT4
440BX: 1300MHz P!!!-S SL5XL | 384MB ECC Reg | Quadro FX500 AGP | XP SP3

Reply 109 of 127, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Oh btw, I think I saw an article on hackaday about breaking out a mini PCIe to 1x riser, so you can plug a desktop card into the Pixel with the PCIe like that.... buuut, not too many that are suitable, Radeon x800, GF6600 maybe, need extra PSU for it too. Not sure it would be all that helpful even so, like a Voodoo3 on your low end 486.

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Reply 110 of 127, by ChrisK

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
VivienM wrote on 2025-01-05, 19:58:
Cosmic wrote on 2025-01-05, 18:29:
Regarding CF cards themselves, I've used a handful of Transcend, Cisco, and Swissbit CF cards with good success, some sample mod […]
Show full quote

Regarding CF cards themselves, I've used a handful of Transcend, Cisco, and Swissbit CF cards with good success, some sample model numbers:

  • CF150
  • SSD-C02G-4431
  • UB30STC4000CZ7-BTB-FCF
  • SFCF1024H1BK2MT-I-MO-553-SMA
  • CF220I / TS4GCF220I
  • CF180 / TS4GCF18IG16IK1

Okay, so Swissbit I can actually get... from sellers of electronic components like Mouser or Digikey. Pretty much all the others on your list - available used from China but that's about it. But... looking at ~$100CAD for an 4GB Swissbit C-56.

Is that just the price to pay for these things unless you want to gamble on used ones, or is this insanely highway robbery?

Well, Swissbit is at the higher (quality-/price-) end for NAND-storage. So prices will never compete with Sandisk/Transcend/... consumer stuff.
Never used them personally but they often come up if you look for storage for professional industrial use.

For retro stuff I've only ever used (bought used) 512MB-4GB Sandisk cards (standard & ultra series) and for readers I use this one:
https://us.transcend-info.com/Products/No-331
Never had any problems with these.

RetroPC: K6-III+/400ATZ @6x83@1.7V / CT-5SIM / 2x 64M SDR / 40G HDD / RIVA TNT / V2 SLI / CT4520
ModernPC: Phenom II 910e @ 3GHz / ALiveDual-eSATA2 / 4x 2GB DDR-II / 512G SSD / 750G HDD / RX470

Reply 111 of 127, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

So I finally got my Transcend cards. Starting to rebuild my DOS 6.22/Windows 3.1 environment and yet again, having big troubles with QEMM. Discovered I was wrong that it causes crashing at boot - in fact it seems to just make everything insanely insanely slow... but if you let it sit for 30 minutes or so, it does boot, and then everything else is snail slow too. (My recollection from before the big CF card failure is that memmaker was about equally unhappy...)

I guess a ~1998 machine isn't really ideal for the kind of aggressive DOS memory management tricks that worked well on 1995 machines.

Reply 112 of 127, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
VivienM wrote on 2025-02-01, 23:40:

I guess a ~1998 machine isn't really ideal for the kind of aggressive DOS memory management tricks that worked well on 1995 machines.

Maybe it's related to CPU caches or the order of memory addressing?
(Wheather it starts from top to bottom or bottom to top, I mean.)

How much memory is installed?
Is the cacheable area okay/does the mainboard have enough cache to handle the amount of RAM?

Afaik, QEMM can handle up to 64MB of RAM just fine.
It also uses VME (Enhanced V86) on Pentium and up.

It also has switches for troubleshooting such as using VCPI/not using VCPI and what not.

But if EMM386/MemMaker has issues too, then something is strange.
Maybe the processor itself has compatibility issues?

Edit: Novell DOS 7 and PC-DOS 6.3/7 have sophisticated memory tools, as well..
Maybe they work better? As a last resort I would give them a try.

Edit: There's also an alternative to the common V86 memory managers..
Helix Multimedia Cloaking uses cloaking technology. It works by moving big drivers past 1MB mark (mscdex, mouse, smartdrive).
To keep contact with Real-Mode DOS it uses tiny stubs (ca. 2KB).
The idea is very elegant and won't cause the usual headaches of QEMM/386Max/EMM386.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 113 of 127, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Jo22 wrote on 2025-02-02, 00:29:
Maybe it's related to CPU caches or the order of memory addressing? (Wheather it starts from top to bottom or bottom to top, I m […]
Show full quote

Maybe it's related to CPU caches or the order of memory addressing?
(Wheather it starts from top to bottom or bottom to top, I mean.)

How much memory is installed?
Is the cacheable area okay/does the mainboard have enough cache to handle the amount of RAM?

64MB of RAM. I don't think cache is an issue on PIIs, isn't that more of a thing on socket 7 boards?

Jo22 wrote on 2025-02-02, 00:29:
Afaik, QEMM can handle up to 64MB of RAM just fine. It also uses VME (Enhanced V86) on Pentium and up. […]
Show full quote

Afaik, QEMM can handle up to 64MB of RAM just fine.
It also uses VME (Enhanced V86) on Pentium and up.

It also has switches for troubleshooting such as using VCPI/not using VCPI and what not.

But if EMM386/MemMaker has issues too, then something is strange.
Maybe the processor itself has compatibility issues?

Edit: Novell DOS 7 and PC-DOS 6.3/7 have sophisticated memory tools, as well..
Maybe they work better? As a last resort I would give them a try.

Edit: There's also an alternative to the common V86 memory managers..
Helix Multimedia Cloaking uses cloaking technology. It works by moving big drivers past 1MB mark (mscdex, mouse, smartdrive).
To keep contact with Real-Mode DOS it uses tiny stubs (ca. 2KB).
The idea is very elegant and won't cause the usual headaches of QEMM/386Max/EMM386.

It's funny, I had the idea of trying one of the newer DOSes - there's no real reason to stick to MS-DOS I suppose.

Maybe I should install 98SE on one of my other CF cards, see if that can tell me something about what devices are using the upper memory area, etc.

Reply 114 of 127, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
VivienM wrote on 2025-02-02, 00:46:

It's funny, I had the idea of trying one of the newer DOSes - there's no real reason to stick to MS-DOS I suppose.

Hi, one reason I'm often using MS-DOS 6.2x is that it is sort of a reference.

It is very compatible, most if not all DOS programs are MS-DOS 5/6 aware and
the supplied utilities (aka external commands) are available in MS-DOS 6.2x.
Especially if the supplemental disk had been installed.

That's what makes MS-DOS 6.2x so great, I think. It's compatible and feature complete.
Programs that rely on batch files will run correctly on MS-DOS 5/6, because the utilities support the / switches.

It also runs on emulators and PCs that have limited PC compatibility.
For example, MS-DOS 6.2x can be booted in PC-Ditto - inside from Steem emulator!

Here, MS-DOS 6.2x is more stable and quick than MS-DOS 2.11, even!
That's something! The only other DOS so nice is outdated PC-DOS 3.30, I think.

Anyway, Novell DOS 7 is nice because it ships with sophisticated software.
Novell had bought DR DOS back then because Novell Netware operating system was being based on DOS.

That's why Novell had such a big interest in owning a state-of-the-art DOS.
It needed a solid foundation for its networking products.

Novell DOS 7 had 286 chipset support, as well as a task-switcher and a preemptive task-manager for 386/486 PCs.
It featured an 32-Bit API for multitasking. New Deal Office 2000 still had special support for this built-in.

So it was fine for the common ATs of the mid-90s, the 286/386/486 family.

Of course, time moved on and there were many patches since the retail release.
Not sure how modern DOSes compare to it, thus. It's nolonger cutting-edge, perhaps. 🤷‍♂️

FreeDOS for example is still being worked on, but it doesn't look very polished and user-friendly.
It also doesn't try to improve DOS and invent new technologies.

DOSes like MS-DOS 6.2x or Novell DOS 7 had featured assistants that took users by the hand.
And then let's compare this with the ugly Linux installer of, say, FreeDOS. 😥

Utilities like PC-Tools or Norton Utilities were from 1990-1994 and had TUIs that looked very elegant and had used custom fonts to draw icons.

Even DOS Shell from MS-DOS 5 is prettier than what FreeDOS has to offer in terms of GUIs (or assistants).
It's like moving from suburb into a slum, by comparison, I think. But I'm getting a bit off-topic. Sorry. 😟

Hm. IBM PC-DOS 2000 seems to be most modern, I suppose. Owners of hot-rod PC/XT computers seem to value it, as well.
I've read positive comments about it at vcfed forums, I remember.

Edited.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 115 of 127, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I have been googling extensively and... found a very small number of people with similar issues to me. This thread has caught my eye: What the...??! my UMB blocks have dissapeared! .

I wonder if my Sophos antivirus on a modern system can detect DOS viruses...

Reply 116 of 127, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
VivienM wrote on 2025-02-02, 05:00:

I have been googling extensively and... found a very small number of people with similar issues to me. This thread has caught my eye: What the...??! my UMB blocks have dissapeared! .

I wonder if my Sophos antivirus on a modern system can detect DOS viruses...

Ouch. 😰

I would tend to say yes, but I'm not 100%.
About 10 years ago, Avira Antivir did still contain vrius information for DOS and boot sector viruses.
Not sure how it is now, however.

Back in the 90s, on my 286, I had used Turbo Anti Virus and it saved me a couple of times.
But it probably wasn't the best, considering the feedback that I got when mentioning it on the forums.

Edit: HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.EXE from MS-DOS 7.1 can be used on MS-DOS 6.22 too.
However, this new EMM386 isn't compatible with MemMaker anymore.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 117 of 127, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Jo22 wrote on 2025-02-02, 05:29:
Ouch. 😰 […]
Show full quote
VivienM wrote on 2025-02-02, 05:00:

I have been googling extensively and... found a very small number of people with similar issues to me. This thread has caught my eye: What the...??! my UMB blocks have dissapeared! .

I wonder if my Sophos antivirus on a modern system can detect DOS viruses...

Ouch. 😰

I would tend to say yes, but I'm not 100%.
About 10 years ago, Avira Antivir did still contain vrius information for DOS and boot sector viruses.
Not sure how it is now, however.

Back in the 90s, on my 286, I had used Turbo Anti Virus and it saved me a couple of times.
But it probably wasn't the best, considering the feedback that I got when mentioning it on the forums.

Edit: HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.EXE from MS-DOS 7.1 can be used on MS-DOS 6.22 too.
However, this new EMM386 isn't compatible with MemMaker anymore.

I managed to get an F-PROT for DOS onto my CF card; booted from a DOS floppy and ran it, it turned up clean. So maybe virus theory is wrong... unfortunately in a way.

I'm now installing Windows Me on the original 8GB CF card that had the bizarre failure but then passed every diagnostics. Please don't ask me why I'm doing that, I'm not really sure.

But this memory thing is really odd - why would a memory manager just slow everything to an insane, 8088 with a floppy drive or worse, type of speed?

Reply 118 of 127, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Well, this is turning out more interesting than expected... Windows Me installer went through the first phase (the Windows 3.1-based phase), rebooted and did all its device detection, and then... black screen on reboot.

I have a feeling if I waited many hours something would show up on screen.

I think Windows Me booting up, switching the processor to protected mode, or something is triggering the exact same insane slowdown behaviour QEMM, at least, was triggering.

(Vintage computing is always fun... and maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but unless some component is bad due to age (e.g. capacitors), I'm suddenly looking at my Startech CF adapter. That and my Gotek are the only things I've added to this machine... and unlike, say, my troubles with Win98 on an AM2 system where I'm widely outside the boundaries of period-correctness, this is a system that's conservatively period-correct for WinMe)

Reply 119 of 127, by Shponglefan

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I've used Startech CF adapters in dozens of configurations and never encountered a problem with extreme system slowness. CF-to-IDE adapters are basically just a pin-to-pin passthrough.

Same with Goteks. From the PC's perspective, it's just a floppy drive.

I suspect something else is going on.

Pentium 4 Multi-OS Build
486 DX4-100 with 6 sound cards
486 DX-33 with 5 sound cards