1997 was the year when Windows started to take over, but it even then it didn't fully replace DOS. I was still playing games like Blood and Shadow Warrior in DOS that came out in 1997.

It wasn't until 1998 when I remember fully switching over to Windows gaming.

zb10948 wrote on 2025-01-23, 15:14:

I really did not want to go for i845, but for 3+ GHz on 865, and to get ISA there was not available, no boards on ebay/ali, so on.

Axiomtek IMB-200 motherboards are readily available from China and have i865 chipsets and support 3+ GHz processors. There are dozens of listings currently on Ebay. They're just pricey so most people avoid them.

Having played around with a few different industrial P4 boards, the IMB-200 is currently my favorite feature-wise.

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-01-23, 16:46:

zb10948 wrote on 2025-01-23, 15:14:

I really did not want to go for i845, but for 3+ GHz on 865, and to get ISA there was not available, no boards on ebay/ali, so on.

Axiomtek IMB-200 motherboards are readily available from China and have i865 chipsets and support 3+ GHz processors. There are dozens of listings currently on Ebay. They're just pricey so most people avoid them.

Having played around with a few different industrial P4 boards, the IMB-200 is currently my favorite feature-wise.

Yeah, that price tag is not going to do. The entire computer I built for that 300 euro, and that was buying parts one by one all in recent period with inflated prices on ebay and ali.

The board tho, seems great. Nice that you have it 😀

Edit : maybe reason why I haven't found it initially is, "socket 478 ISA" on ebay.de on first page gives you 500e items...

zb10948 wrote on 2025-01-23, 15:14:

ISA slots don't mean it can fully support ISA soundcards because a lot of P4 ISA bridge chips do not work well with DMA.
The industrial use is different because the controllers run PIO.

For such cases we now have SBEmu, gratefully.
https://github.com/crazii/SBEMU

What's also possible is to use a parallel port DAC, such as Covox SpeechThing or Disney Sound Source.
It's being supported by a few games natively, but the 90s alternatives to SBEmu can help, too.

- Covoxer (Tandy 3-Voice)
- TEMU (Disney Soundsource and Tandy 3-Voice)
- Virtual Sound Blaster (SB 1.0 DAC)

Covox drivers for Windows 3.1x and up exist, too.
covoxwin.zip, SOUNDJR

There's even a Sound Blaster emulator driver for Windows 3.x that can provide Sound Blaster emulation to DOS sessions.
It might have been LPTDAC.386, I think.

SBEMU is neat, it works on the board I'm using. The computer build I could not jusify just for once in a while gaming session, decided to dual use it as "DAW" with a bunch of software I used back 20 years ago. Instead of using Windows 2000 again, I opted for XP for better USB MIDI controller/interface support.

I have some Creative PCI cards and tested SBEMU but in the end opted for getting an ESS Solo-1 cheap from ebay, due to ESFM and wavetable support in DOS and WinXP.

Smedis2 wrote on 2025-01-23, 02:29:

I've always wondered though, there's plenty of DOS-based games from around 1996-1999 floating around on specific websites. Would the average game person be playing these or would they have been pretty much laughed off (actual game quality notwithstanding) or was it at least still considered a kosher option for smaller, faster games?

If you're talking about proper commercial titles (disregarding their quality), then there are likely none that have come out from major developers after 1999-2000.

I'm only aware of a fairly obscure Spanish company called 5 Union Software Group that continued pumping out some pretty cheap (in every sense) DOS-based games on CDs in the early 2000s as budget commercial titles. I think they were using some kind of game-maker utility to produce many of their games, and a few are created with DIV Games Studio (and one was simply a sample game from the DIV Games Studio suite, with just the title changed to something else). And even they apparently stopped publishing DOS stuff after 2001.

However, since DOS-based games could run under Win95/98 and XP, amateur developers continued to make DOS games with such tools and QuickBASIC or DIV Games Studio. These are of varying quality, but a lot of them were continuing to be created up until mid-2000s if not even later. Very often, they were designed to be run from under Windows and will have some functionality disabled in pure DOS (or will be unstable in that environment). For example, there are QuickBASIC games like 'Ghini Run or TerraScape - Breakdown Velocity that use a particular sound system which only works under Windows, while still being DOS games themselves.

Many games from the first half of the 2000s that used the Allegro library -- which was another popular tool for non-commercial/shareware game creation -- were also compiled as DOS applications, which includes a few notable Doom source ports like MBF. Other open source projects that did not use Allegro also continued to be compiled for DOS before migrating to Windows.

Chris Jones' Adventure Game Studio (AGS) was another popular source for all kinds of DOS-based adventure games, since it was originally a DOS application, and continued to be dual platform (DOS and Windows) until 2004 or so. What's more, games released for Windows only during this period may often be run in DOS too if you use the same (or pretty close) version of the DOS binary as the Windows AGS version the game was created with.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-01-23, 08:38:

And no, Windows NT4 and 2000 were no alternatives.

I found 2000 much more better for Windows gaming than Windows 98SE.

VDM is a no-factor for me.

zb10948 wrote on 2025-03-22, 00:17:

Jo22 wrote on 2025-01-23, 08:38:

And no, Windows NT4 and 2000 were no alternatives.

I found 2000 much more better for Windows gaming than Windows 98SE.

I knew it, I saw that coming! 😆

To be honest, I agree that Windows 2000 was a fine OS.
Way back in year 2000 it wasn't "on my radar" yet, though.

Windows 9x was what every hard- and software had supported by turn of the millennium.
Also because it could use Windows 3.x drivers and DOS drivers, still.

Windows NT line was known for NT 4, an alternative to Windows 95.
If memory serves, NT 4 had the reputation of to be hard to configure and being limited to a small selection of standard hardware.

And Windows 2000? Well, by year 2000 there wasn't much to say yet. It was still very fresh, after all.
Windows 98SE, however, had been "known" for 5 years already - thanks to its close relationship to Windows 95.

For some reason I was always sticking with DOS, probably beacuse early 90s games mostly had "Dont even try to run this in Windows" in readmes or had a dedicated Windows version that felt somewhat inferior to the DOS one, despite, say, higher resolution support - take for example Gabriel Kinght 1 that had monochrome cursor icons for inventory items, as opposed to full colored DOS ones, or Red Alert which did videos interlaced. For me it was an inconvenience that Sierra (and Coctel) did their later quests targeting Windows with all the additional multimedia libraries nonsence that it required. This all, of course changed with Windows 95, but I still had a lot of reluctance to switch, so missed all the early fun on the platform, I am only now rediscovering. For me personally it was Baldur's Gate that the turning point, when I realized Windows 9x is becoming a must to play modern games on a PC.

I checked some of the games which have impressed me circa that period and they seem to be ~95-96:

Ascendancy 1995
Afterlife 1996
Wipeout 1995
Flight Unlimited 1995
E: Time Commando 1996
E: Star Control III 1996

Obviously 1997 still saw some great games. Just as an example:

Flying Corps 1997
Spellcross 1997
E: Dungeon Keeper 1997

But by that time I think I was loading into Windows 9x DOS mode for playing them 😀.
I would say by the time Starcraft and Half Life hit in 1998, DOS was kind of done.

E: Keep remembering more old stuff after pressing submit, so adding them as well. Lands of Lore II (1997) could be another great example, I have not played it at the time though. EE: Or Silmarils' Deus (1997) of which I only learned last year. But for both, I think, you didnt event need to go to DOS as they had full featured Windows versions.

For me it was an inconvenience that Sierra (and Coctel) did their later quests targeting Windows with all the additional multimedia libraries nonsence that it required.

Ah yes, reminds me of some Siera games such as Larry 6.
https://www.mobygames.com/game/407/leisure-su … lip-out/trivia/

They had been available as mode 13h "VGA" version (yuck!), 640x480 256c Windows 3.1x version and SVGA DOS version (yay!).

Kings Quest 7 was one of these WinG titles that some people may remember in a more negative way, I can imagine.

The good thing about pure Windows games was that they could be run on WABI on Unix workstations or on Linux PCs.
In principle, I mean. Not sure if Win32s, Video for Windows and WinG were supported on WABI.

This all, of course changed with Windows 95, but I still had a lot of reluctance to switch, so missed all the early fun on the platform, I am only now rediscovering.

Well yes and no, I think.
I for one "grew up" with plain Windows 3.1 and original Windows 95.
And original Windows 95 did not have any extras, such as DirectX or FAT32 or USB.
It didn't even include WinG runtime, which still was optional (WinG was made for both Windows 3.1&95).
So with the exception of incorporating Win32s and Video for Windows functionality, Windows 95 was still very barebone.

That's also why Windows 95 still kind of belonged to 16-Bit era and the 256 colour era.
Many Win16 games and applications were still being developed during the time Windows 95 was current.

Even by using 16-Bit tools such as Visual Basic 3.
Many Windows 95 era applications were 16-/32-Bit hybrids of some kind, as well.
There were Win16 applications that made use of Windows 95 API features, for example.
Windows 95 did identify itself as Windows "3.95" via the Win16 API.

By the time Windows 98FE came out, the 16-Bit era had come to an end, I think.
Windows 98 did use System32 folder more often than System folder (as Windows95 did), it used registry more often than ini files etc.
There was a much higher focus on DirectX also. MCI use/WaveOut use in Windows 98 era had dropped in use.
Display drivers were nearly all being "Direct Draw 1.0" compatible by now, even for ISA VGA cards.

Edit: That being said, I understand that "Windows 95" can mean a lot of different things to different people.

There wasn't just one Windows 95, but Windows 95 RTM, A, B and C.
To make things more confusing, Windows 95 was also known as RTM, OSR 1, OSR 2, OSR 2.1 and OSR 2.5!

To some people who grew up with Windows 95, it was like my experience, while others had an Windows 98-like experience already.
With FAT32, USB, Internet Explorer with Active Desktop and maybe DirectX (pre-installed by OEMs).

Agree with what you say, actually. I did play games in Windows even before the Win98 days and fully understand what you mean. Also I guess that's why I am referring to Win9x in the later part of your post.

Probably my preference for DOS and reluctance to switch meant I only fully went to Windows as gaming OS by the time the "full suite" experience of later Win98 was around.

EDIT: just to go back to the original topic, the summary of my experience that I was posting above in response to OP is: 1996 one probably still played DOS games (except obviously King's Quest VII or the likes, although it could have been via 3.11), 1997 was split with Windows 9x used for some games or as a convenient Desktop OS, but major games still hapenning in DOS, 1998 and on was probably mostly just Windows 9x.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-03-22, 07:31:

I knew it, I saw that coming! 😆 […]
Show full quote

zb10948 wrote on 2025-03-22, 00:17:

Jo22 wrote on 2025-01-23, 08:38:

And no, Windows NT4 and 2000 were no alternatives.

I found 2000 much more better for Windows gaming than Windows 98SE.

I knew it, I saw that coming! 😆

To be honest, I agree that Windows 2000 was a fine OS.
Way back in year 2000 it wasn't "on my radar" yet, though.

Windows 9x was what every hard- and software had supported by turn of the millennium.
Also because it could use Windows 3.x drivers and DOS drivers, still.

Windows NT line was known for NT 4, an alternative to Windows 95.
If memory serves, NT 4 had the reputation of to be hard to configure and being limited to a small selection of standard hardware.

And Windows 2000? Well, by year 2000 there wasn't much to say yet. It was still very fresh, after all.
Windows 98SE, however, had been "known" for 5 years already - thanks to its close relationship to Windows 95.

W98SE was an OK system if you didn't push for backward compatibility. If you still used VxDs and 16-bit DOS drivers, the system was about as stable as first Windows 95.

The difference between 95/98SE and NT4 is larger than against 2000, from users perspective. Microsoft made changes to converge the two branches of their OSes already. There were already plans to make the "one true os".

2000 is NT5, XP is NT5.1, Vista is NT6.
You can see from the numbers that XP is a minor upgrade to 2000. Vista is ahead of both, as much as both are ahead of NT4.
People tend to be quite confused about XP, calling it an unique os, calling Vista a polishing upgrade, in reality it it reversed.
XP is polish on Windows 2000, over a minor kernel change.

For late 32bit era, yes XP is a good choice because of library availability, newer DirectX, .NET, whatever.
For early 21st century stuff, 2000 is a far better choice than XP if you don't run VDM stuff.

Why I write all this? Because if 2000 is an alternative to XP for a 2002 computer, and that same XP is an upgrade for 98SE, what exactly does that make Windows 2000? 😉

Btw. NT4 is also solid for gaming.

zb10948 wrote on 2025-03-22, 13:19:

2000 is NT5, XP is NT5.1, Vista is NT6. You can see from the numbers that XP is a minor upgrade to 2000. Vista is ahead of both, […]
Show full quote

2000 is NT5, XP is NT5.1, Vista is NT6.
You can see from the numbers that XP is a minor upgrade to 2000. Vista is ahead of both, as much as both are ahead of NT4.
People tend to be quite confused about XP, calling it an unique os, calling Vista a polishing upgrade, in reality it it reversed.
XP is polish on Windows 2000, over a minor kernel change.

Somewhat, I was jump around in '99/'00. I ran 2000 for a bit and loved the stability, but you lost access to tons of games. Then I tried ME which in the first day nuked itself with system recovery stuff. So back to 98SE until XP was released.

But XP wasn't just polishing 2000. There were major backwards compatibility updates that made the jump from 9X to XP doable. Non-business users wouldn't have gone to 2000 as it was. Backwards compatibility was a key item to MS's success and still is to this day for better or worse.

But people also forget the XP everyone is using isn't the XP that was originally released. Outside of the development hell of Longhorn the gap between XP and Vista also existed because of XP SP2. That added a bunch of features and really could have been its own release.

I think my Rendition Verite 2100 did more to drive me from Dos to Windows than anything else. Rendition Verite cards are notoriously slow on ModeX, which a ton of Dos games use.

zb10948 wrote on 2025-03-22, 13:19:

W98SE was an OK system if you didn't push for backward compatibility. If you still used VxDs and 16-bit DOS drivers, the system was about as stable as first Windows 95.

Well, you could say so. It's not wrong.
On other hand, the device drivers in Win98SE used by Win98SE itself were much more mature.

The ACPI support was much more compatible/relaxed, especially with flakey motherboards.
There were motherboards with "bent" (not to say broken) ACPI implementations that worked okay with Windows 98SE, but not Linux.
I remember this from the Linux 2.4 days. Apparently, Windows 98SE had high tolerances here.

Then there were speed related issues in Windows 95 that were fixed in Windows 98SE.
It also had used some WDM drivers and DLLs in place of VXDs.

The rest of the DLLs shipped in Windows 98SE were newer versions, too.
Most Windows 95 applications ran without any extra DLLs as it had been the case with Windows 95.

Things like AGP and MMX had been more mature in Windows 98SE, too.

Edit: What I meant to say: Windows 98SE was more "buffered" than Windows 95 was.
There were more intermediate DLLs and layers involved than with Windows 95.
So a broken DLL or driver wasn't causing as much of a damage than with Windows 95.

I mean, it still had the potential to cause damage.
But there were workarounds and exception handlers that caused a blue screen or closed an application, rather.

On Windows 95, I had two memories:
a) On a 386 with plain ISA devices - Windows 95 was quite solid, barely a blue screen.
b) On Pentium onwards with PCI/AGP - Windows 95 triggered a reset straight away when it crashed (no blues screen).

zb10948 wrote on 2025-03-22, 13:19:

Btw. NT4 is also solid for gaming.

Oof! Yes, you're not wrong.
It's just.. Oh, well.. Windows NT4 was more of a thing of owners of servers and workstations. Of power users, in short.
Ambitious users who were into games such as Anno 1602, The Settlers, SimCity, Sid Meier’s Colonization etc.
Of course, with a bit of hacking, DirectX 3 or DirectX 5/6 games ran fine.
An efficient OpenGL 1.1 software renderer was available, too.

In short, Windows NT 4 was good to power users with industry standard hardware.
Those who had a big tower PC with SCSI drives, non-PnP SB16 and a good 2D graphics card (2D blitting/GDI acceleration, good video quality).
Like a Pentium Pro PC with two CPUs, 64 MB of RAM and multiple SCSI drives.

On random (cheap) PC hardware and laptop hardware, Windows 98SE was more functional. USB, PCMCIA, Plug&Pray.
It's performance was not as good, though (3D stuff excluded).

Edit: Windows NT 4 was also great for software development, games included.
It allowed real multitasking of Win16 applications (one dedicated Win31 environment per Win16 application).
Working with lots of memory and lots of open files was working smoother than with Windows 9x.
HPFS and NTFS filesystems helped here, as well.