Hi gerry, the #3 reminds me of an story of the early 2000s.
There was a guy named Tony which was a fan of Windows 98 - but only 98FE, he disliked 98SE!

Anyway, he installed it for all the fellow hams he knew and who needed a PC.
He also fixed driver issues for them, installed software etc. So far so good.
But as time had went on, Windows 98 got old and people had heard about Windows XP and so I did, uhm, assist them at installing Windows.
A while later he had found out and was grumpy.
He made a car/motor comparison and tried to argue that such a new OS didn't work on these old computers.

I didn't disagree, but pointed out that the others had approached me and that it wasn't my decision to go XP.
Silently I thought to myself, though, that these guys had newer PCs that I had used for running Windows XP first time (Pentium MMX, 64MB RAM, 2GB SCSI HDD).

I always felt in the 2000’s that the natural order was ATI in Intel systems (red and blue) and Nvidia in AMD systems (team green).

The only time I had an ATI card (9800) in an AMD system with Nvidia chipset I was sorely disappointed by it…

gerry wrote on 2025-04-22, 13:03:

32 bit OSes on 64bit CPUS

16-bit OS on 32-bit CPU is much worse.

Unfortunately, such was the history of the PC, and for majority of 32-bit machines the default OS is still plain 16-bit DOS, only sometimes hidden under 32-bit overlay.

hornet1990 wrote on 2025-04-22, 16:59:

I always felt in the 2000’s that the natural order was ATI in Intel systems (red and blue) and Nvidia in AMD systems (team green).

The only time I had an ATI card (9800) in an AMD system with Nvidia chipset I was sorely disappointed by it…

Ah, I see! Because of the nForce chipsets, right!? 😃

I was in team, uh, well..

Which team was Via C7 and S3 UniChrome again? Team yellow? 😥

Grzyb wrote on 2025-04-22, 17:30:

gerry wrote on 2025-04-22, 13:03:

32 bit OSes on 64bit CPUS

16-bit OS on 32-bit CPU is much worse.

Unfortunately, such was the history of the PC, and for majority of 32-bit machines the default OS is still plain 16-bit DOS, only sometimes hidden under 32-bit overlay.

Hi Grzyb! That brings back memories of OS/2! 😅

Jo22 wrote on 2025-04-22, 17:53:

Ah, I see! Because of the nForce chipsets, right!? 😃

I was in team, uh, well..

Which team was Via C7 and S3 UniChrome again? Team yellow? 😥

Yep, nForce chipsets.

Via was blue, S3 yellow… so you could make green!

But in my mind red or blue just didn’t go with green… daft really.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-04-22, 17:53:

Hi Grzyb! That brings back memories of OS/2! 😅

Of course!
I will never forgive that it was born as the 16-bit monstrosity, and not a lightweight 32-bit thing.

USB keyboard and mouse on DOS/Windows 9x once you hear about the horrible SMM kludge it takes to make that work, when systems of that era almost invariably had PS/2 ports anyway

Win9x on widescreen monitors, particularly 16:9. I resisted widescreen as long as I could; at least 1366x768 finally died. That was awful.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-04-22, 14:54:

Hi gerry, the #3 reminds me of an story of the early 2000s. There was a guy named Tony which was a fan of Windows 98 - but only […]
Show full quote

Hi gerry, the #3 reminds me of an story of the early 2000s.
There was a guy named Tony which was a fan of Windows 98 - but only 98FE, he disliked 98SE!

Anyway, he installed it for all the fellow hams he knew and who needed a PC.
He also fixed driver issues for them, installed software etc. So far so good.
But as time had went on, Windows 98 got old and people had heard about Windows XP and so I did, uhm, assist them at installing Windows.
A while later he had found out and was grumpy.
He made a car/motor comparison and tried to argue that such a new OS didn't work on these old computers.

I didn't disagree, but pointed out that the others had approached me and that it wasn't my decision to go XP.
Silently I thought to myself, though, that these guys had newer PCs that I had used for running Windows XP first time (Pentium MMX, 64MB RAM, 2GB SCSI HDD).

I have to say that preferring FE over SE is kinda funny 😀 I wouldn't much like XP on an MMX like above, but one thing is clear - XP really doesnt require the kind of specs many vintage enthusiasts think of as 'minimal'

hornet1990 wrote on 2025-04-22, 16:59:

I always felt in the 2000’s that the natural order was ATI in Intel systems (red and blue) and Nvidia in AMD systems (team green).

The only time I had an ATI card (9800) in an AMD system with Nvidia chipset I was sorely disappointed by it…

I admit i never minded mixing that up, but it sounds perfectly within the notion of a kind of tech-aesthetic preference

Grzyb wrote on 2025-04-22, 17:30:

16-bit OS on 32-bit CPU is much worse.

Unfortunately, such was the history of the PC, and for majority of 32-bit machines the default OS is still plain 16-bit DOS, only sometimes hidden under 32-bit overlay.

Ah yes, all that time robbing the 386/486 of its rightful 32 bits! Although much software used various workarounds to use full 32 bits, dos4gw etc.

jakethompson1 wrote on 2025-04-22, 22:09:

USB keyboard and mouse on DOS/Windows 9x once you hear about the horrible SMM kludge it takes to make that work, when systems of that era almost invariably had PS/2 ports anyway

Win9x on widescreen monitors, particularly 16:9. I resisted widescreen as long as I could; at least 1366x768 finally died. That was awful.

hmm, interesting - i agree on usb and dos

widescreen on 9x wouldn't bother me (though i've never tried....) but i do know what you mean, it doesn't quite fit. 16:9 and and other widescreen ratios somehow don't belong in the 9x era

Yes, I agree with quite a few of the propositions here.

Myself I have a strange aversion to Windows XP on Core 2 Quad or newer. For me it's Vista/Win7 territory. There is no logical reason for it - XP is perfectly compatible with even up-to 4th generation Core i7 systems and legitimate use cases exist. It is solely because of the systems I was running during that time period.

Ok.. this is *a joke*, but what about win2k + Android Tablet?

That's Limbo x86 running the VM, and a VNC viewer interacting with the VM.

Its ugly this way, but lets the vm run 'headless' / background, so I can talk to the smb share I have running on the vm with total commander to get files in and out of the vm.

This thread is about unholy combinations of hardware and software, so I thought I'd share this one!

Phhht!

How come no one mentioned 32-bit Windows XP on a system with more than 3 GB of RAM? Yes, 32-bit OS on 64-bit CPU was mentioned, but I always think of RAM first.

Probably not a popular view nowadays, but running DOSBOX at all (in Windows). Seems like a bloated, slow, horribly inefficient mess. You're compromising very heavily on *everything*, from speed to sound to intended look to aspect ratio. You name it.

If you want to run DOS, run it baremetal on a real CRT monitor if possible. It's such a faster, more genuine and better experience.

Must admit I've been guilty of running underpowered video cards on more modern computers if they are being used as a server, but then even the big OEM companies are guilty of this.
Anything I intend to game on I generally have a somewhat matched pairing.

I very much agree with pairing office with the OS, for me the latest supported version feels right accept WinXP which gets 2003. The Office 2007 UI is a better "match" for Vista in my rulebook.

SATA and PCIE on Win9x and below. For me this belongs in XP territory.

Mine would be Windows 9x on multi-CPU systems.

gerry wrote on 2025-04-22, 13:03:

32 bit OSes on 64bit CPUS.

I make an exception for Windows XP on Core 2 or older CPUs because that was period-correct. Vista was generally hated, and 64-bit XP had poor driver support.

wierd_w wrote on 2025-04-23, 21:09:

Ok.. this is *a joke*, but what about win2k + Android Tablet? […]
Show full quote

Ok.. this is *a joke*, but what about win2k + Android Tablet?

The attachment 2025-04-23-14-53-27-763.jpg is no longer available

That's Limbo x86 running the VM, and a VNC viewer interacting with the VM.

Its ugly this way, but lets the vm run 'headless' / background, so I can talk to the smb share I have running on the vm with total commander to get files in and out of the vm.

This thread is about unholy combinations of hardware and software, so I thought I'd share this one!

Phhht!

that is indeed ugly, but I think there is some kind of barrier or ridiculousness which once crossed just makes the combination interesting! 😀

UCyborg wrote on 2025-04-23, 21:28:

How come no one mentioned 32-bit Windows XP on a system with more than 3 GB of RAM? Yes, 32-bit OS on 64-bit CPU was mentioned, but I always think of RAM first.

Yes good to point that out, i'd add using tricks to get win 98se to "see" more ram too, nothing that needs 9x is going to use it. Generally i find the advice regarding XP and its RAM requirements is overstated too. Sure, have 2gb if its there but lets not say its actually necessary or changes anything in OS performance over 1gb, and lets not pretend that XP is somehow struggling if ram is 512mb

lti wrote on 2025-04-24, 03:57:

gerry wrote on 2025-04-22, 13:03:

32 bit OSes on 64bit CPUS.

I make an exception for Windows XP on Core 2 or older CPUs because that was period-correct. Vista was generally hated, and 64-bit XP had poor driver support.

It is indeed a reality and it will work ok. XP mainstream support ended 2009 so this includes a bunch of 64 bit multi core processor architectures. Still, i don't like to waste all that cpu on a 32bit OS - even while recognising those facts. I think part of it might be that I have a few machines from late 2000's to early 2010's and they all run W7 or Linux just fine, so there is for me no good reason to downgrade the OS and create limitations in RAM etc.

When i read advice given in "i want a gaming XP rig" threads there is often something along the lines of using a 4th generation Core i7, maxing out everything and I just think - sounds like a nice gaming machine for windows 7! It's putting a supercharged V8 in a compact, the transmission, the tyres, the suspension - its can't make full use of it ( i get it when there's a dual boot or no alternative machine though)

zyzzle wrote on 2025-04-24, 00:42:

Probably not a popular view nowadays, but running DOSBOX at all (in Windows). Seems like a bloated, slow, horribly inefficient mess. You're compromising very heavily on *everything*, from speed to sound to intended look to aspect ratio. You name it.

If you want to run DOS, run it baremetal on a real CRT monitor if possible. It's such a faster, more genuine and better experience.

I suppose for many there is a relative scarcity of DOS bare metal around. In any case i like dosbox as i like various emulators, i accept the compromises - which i agree are real compared to crt & suitable hardware

chinny22 wrote on 2025-04-24, 02:21:

Must admit I've been guilty of running underpowered video cards on more modern computers if they are being used as a server, but […]
Show full quote

Must admit I've been guilty of running underpowered video cards on more modern computers if they are being used as a server, but then even the big OEM companies are guilty of this.
Anything I intend to game on I generally have a somewhat matched pairing.

I very much agree with pairing office with the OS, for me the latest supported version feels right accept WinXP which gets 2003. The Office 2007 UI is a better "match" for Vista in my rulebook.

SATA and PCIE on Win9x and below. For me this belongs in XP territory.

I suppose its ok on servers 😀
Regarding office it was something that annoyed me - people buying a new machine only to load office 97 once again, i understood - cost, familiarity etc - but it still just looked so wrong!
agree on 9x and anything like sata, pcie - if it can be made to work that's great, if its the only combination available thats ok - but otherwise, i'd just not do it