Awe64/voodoo3 on a apollo pro chipset. Never could get it to work.

jakethompson1 wrote on 2025-04-25, 22:37:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2025-04-25, 22:34:

I could never get on with the Adptec CD burning software.
I cant remember what it was called. I used it way back when CD burners were new and have memories of it turning out coasters more often than not.

Easy CD Creator

It was way too heavy for my system, only used it once or twice then discovered CDRWIN

I cant remember what I replaced it with at the time, but I remember I didnt have any luck with it. Which is strange as it was recommended time and time and time again by others who had CD-R drives.
Only one I really remember was Nero. But there was something I used between the two I just cant remember what it was.

Some things I don't like...
- MS-DOS 4.0 on anything. Buggy, ugly and too heavy for 86 and 286 class computers. The barely minimal memory managers don't justify install it on 386+ computers. You should use 3.x for older computer or 5+ for 386+ computers.
- Also, Windows Me on anything. Maybe it's not as unstable as I remember, but it's a step back from 98 (BTW, I don't think that Vista is a bad OS).
- USB 2.0 network adapters, or USB 2.0 connected dockstation with network adapters. Really slow things.
- As you said, modern CD record programs. Easy CD creator was fine up to 4.x; Nero up to 5.x. Later versions are a heavy mess that is not justified.
- Default installation on anything. Why do I need to install some 500Mb for a printer when the driver only gets 5 or 6? Do you really think I need to be scammed with a subscription for ink? Do I need overclocking utilities for my video card by default? Can't I use it at default clocks? What is that crap that is on my brand new should-be-clean laptop? (HP is the worst offender).
- Norton Antivirus on anything (also Panda Antivirus).
- Any CRT except for museums and hobbyists. They weren't bad... when new. Today, they have 20+ years, are not well maintaned and all of them are out-of-focus. They have advantages for hobbyists and they take care of them, but business not. OSHA should tag them as work hazards.
- Flat TVs connected to ANY computer. Most of them have a resolution list of about 3 or 4 modes and apply filters to the image. IMHO, Philips is the worst offender... lagged image, filters make the image crap. Being cheaper and bigger than proper monitors is not an excuse to use them.

About the whole VGA/TFT thing... please, use that digital cables. Most people leave the new cables in the box instead of changing VGA cables. VGA cables were fine for CRT or low resolution (1280x max) TFT panels, but not for HD ones. At that resolucions, they happily get interferences and make on-screen artifacts (shadows and the like) because they're usually old (not changed every time a monitor is changed) and are working at or beyond their bandwith limits.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-04-24, 12:05:

c) VGA allows all sorts of refresh rates, all sort of timings as input. DVI/HDMI, however, force the source device to use native […]
Show full quote

c) VGA allows all sorts of refresh rates, all sort of timings as input.
DVI/HDMI, however, force the source device to use native panel resolution or refresh rate (60 Hz, often).
This again is bad for users of emulators, such as DOSBox or ZSNES, because the emulated applications aren't exactly fixed to 60 Hz (some use 72 Hz, 50 or 59 Hz).
Using some refresh rate that seems "close enough" results in micro stutters and so on.

Not really true. AFAIK...
- Older CRT monitors don't have a list of clock speed or modes.
- Newer CRT or TFT monitors can inform the OS of their clock speed and better modes.
- The OS will let you select a mode from that list, and (by default) will use the "better" mode available (in TFT that's the one that has the same panel resolution).
- You can force any CRT connected to VGA to use any almost resolucion/refresh that suits their rated clocks speed.
- (Almost all) TFTs monitors works at fixed speeds, so you can only get modes that work at that speeds. That means that you could get the same granularity as CRT monitors (i.e.: 59.1 fps instead of 60).
- Freesync/Gsync monitors (using suitable cables and video cards) can select mostly any refresh speed (but not resolution).

TL;DR: It depends more on CRT vs TFT than VGA vs DVI/HDMI/DP.

I've got a Freesync monitor (AOC), connected via DP to a nVidia 1050 (natively Gsync, but can use freesync) and I can use MAME to play games at the "same" refresh as intended (funny thing... for lower refresh speeds, it is doubled). No scroll tearing, no artifacts. It's easy to test using MK3 and Samurai Shodown 2 (in MK3 "unsynced" cards fill make a "jump" when showing the fighters ladder, in Samurai Shodown 2 look at the "shadows" below the fighters).

Freesync/Gsync monitors are niche and proprietary, AFAIK. VGA has enough bandwidth for pixel-perfect 1080p, at least; I saw it.
Yes, TFT/LCDs work with their native res/refresh internally, but accept a variety of external timings as input (via VGA). They do a conversion, likely.
HDMI is consumer technology. 😕👎
VGA and DVI are more serious. They are mechanical more sturdy, too and have mounting screws.
In industrial and medical environment VGA is still in common use, rightfully.

(Edit: Note to myself: Remember to install DOS 4 on my vintage PCs more often and make YouTube videos about it. Make DOS 4 great again. Showcase DOS-Shell v4.)

I remember easy cd creater! Came with my HP 2X burner. Those were the days!

Jo22 wrote on 2025-04-26, 08:48:

Freesync/Gsync monitors are niche and proprietary, AFAIK. VGA has enough bandwidth for pixel-perfect 1080p, at least; I saw it. […]
Show full quote

Freesync/Gsync monitors are niche and proprietary, AFAIK. VGA has enough bandwidth for pixel-perfect 1080p, at least; I saw it.
Yes, TFT/LCDs work with their native res/refresh internally, but accept a variety of external timings as input (via VGA). They do a conversion, likely.
HDMI is consumer technology. 😕👎
VGA and DVI are more serious. They are mechanical more sturdy, too and have mounting screws.
In industrial and medical environment VGA is still in common use, rightfully.

(Edit: Note to myself: Remember to install DOS 4 on my vintage PCs more often and make YouTube videos about it. Make DOS 4 great again. Showcase DOS-Shell v4.)

Freesync is open source and far from niche, its on pretty much everything these days.
G-Sync is the locked proprietary niche one.

Its why you see far more Free Sync panels, its free open and requires no extra locked hardware to add it to panels.

Trashbytes wrote on 2025-04-27, 07:25:

Freesync is open source and far from niche, its on pretty much everything these days.
G-Sync is the locked proprietary niche one.

Its why you see far more Free Sync panels, its free open and requires no extra locked hardware to add it to panels.

Freesync is open on paper but seems to be support by AMD graphics cards only, G-Sync is owned by Nvidia (GeForce-Sync).
Looks like the old ATI (AMD) vs Nvidia rivalry again. I've never been a "two camps" fan, whatsoever. 🙁
Watching that war as an outsider was annoying enough in the 2000s, I'm not going to take sides for either of them now.
According to a quick look at AMD database, the oldest Freesync monitor is from 2016/2017.
That's still pretty recent, I think. Less than ten years. For example, my current LCD/TFT monitor is a 2009 model, I think.

Edit: I also like the older 16:10 format. No Freesync monitors seem to support it, though.

There are no Freesync/G-Sync 16:10 monitors, only 16:9 or ~21:9.

2560x1440 is 33% wider and 20% taller than 1920x1200, so that's probably your best option.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/4q … gsync_monitors/

Jo22 wrote on 2025-04-27, 07:42:

Freesync is open on paper but seems to be support by AMD graphics cards only, G-Sync is owned by Nvidia (GeForce-Sync).
Looks like the old ATI (AMD) vs Nvidia rivalry again. I've never been a "two camps" fan, whatsoever. 🙁

Wrong.

As I said earlier, freesync is supported also on nVidia cards with some limitations.
- Your card must be an 10xx or later.
- Your driver must be 471.xx+.
- Freesync is only supported on DP (NOT HDMI!). It seems that AMD supports Freesync on HDMI and DP.

I'm currently using an nVidia 1050Ti, with latest drivers and it is connected to a monitor AOC 24G2W1G4 via a DP cable. Its funny that on nVidia contol panel it is called "Gsync compatibility" instead of "Freesync compatibility".

How 'bout modern Chromium on Windows XP?

UCyborg wrote on 2025-04-27, 10:49:

How 'bout modern Chromium on Windows XP?

chrome is ugly in any OS

Zup wrote on 2025-04-27, 10:06:

Wrong. […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2025-04-27, 07:42:

Freesync is open on paper but seems to be support by AMD graphics cards only, G-Sync is owned by Nvidia (GeForce-Sync).
Looks like the old ATI (AMD) vs Nvidia rivalry again. I've never been a "two camps" fan, whatsoever. 🙁

Wrong.

As I said earlier, freesync is supported also on nVidia cards with some limitations.
- Your card must be an 10xx or later.
- Your driver must be 471.xx+.
- Freesync is only supported on DP (NOT HDMI!). It seems that AMD supports Freesync on HDMI and DP.

I'm currently using an nVidia 1050Ti, with latest drivers and it is connected to a monitor AOC 24G2W1G4 via a DP cable. Its funny that on nVidia contol panel it is called "Gsync compatibility" instead of "Freesync compatibility".

Correct

Intel also fully supports freesync.

Freesync is fully opensource and always has been.

Also it's a monitor standard not a gpu one, so yes there would be 16:10 panels with it but only from after its introduction.

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 was interested in DOSBox mostly for one (buggy) game, The Terminator: Skynet. Gave up since I couldn't run it satisfactorily in SVGA mode and default resolution is way too pixelated. That experience made me conclude DOS stuff is too old and primitive for me. Not sure if emulation could be faster, though it's funny to think my computer could handle Doom (2016) better.

Didn't have much luck emulating PlayStation 2 either (PCSX2), but PS2 at least doesn't have much in common with x86.

^Um, but we're still aware that Vogons Zetafleet used to be the home of DOSBox, right?
I'm not sure if it's encouraging to the DOSBox devs "who live here" that their project
they had been working on hard for the past 20 years is being considered a "bloated, slow, horribly inefficient mess". 😟

Also, it was DOSBox who introduced me to this forum, originally.
It helped me to get Windows 3.1 running on my then-current Windows XP PC.
That's why I got back into retro computing, so to say.
Not that I hadn't tinkered with console emulation before, but it allowed me re-living the shareware/freeware era of the 90s.
Classmates at the time were fascinated by VDMSound, by the way. Another project of this place.

Well, I'm not smart enough to judge efficiency of any emulator, all I know is that they tend to be painfully slow on my computer. Might fare better with simpler games. PCem could barely manage 90 MHz Pentium on my Phenom II, not sure how authentic it was compared to real Pentium.

My computer might be a bit outdated, but I need a better reason than emulators before I replace it. 😜

Other part of my remark is subjective rambling, I need certain level of clarity in graphics and sound and immersion for me to be able to be drawn to a game, which DOS games simply lack due to technical restrictions of the time.

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.

Why? i use XP 32bits and my PC have 8GB ram and i will update to 16GB as soon i can

theelf wrote on 2025-04-27, 22:48:

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.

Why? i use XP 32bits and my PC have 8GB ram and i will update to 16GB as soon i can

I assume you know 32bit operating systems cannot address beyond 4Gb of memory, usually itll be 3.8Gb usable by windows, the rest is ignored by the OS and cannot be used.

There is PAE which does allow more than 4Gb but its ...well a cludge and has its own issues and limitations that are not present in a 64bit OS.

Zup wrote on 2025-04-26, 08:09:

- MS-DOS 4.0 on anything. Buggy, ugly and too heavy for 86 and 286 class computers. The barely minimal memory managers don't justify install it on 386+ computers. You should use 3.x for older computer or 5+ for 386+ computers.

Not complaining as it's really neat that they open sourced it (and they're one of the few companies to actually dig up their "abandonware" and do this) but it's too bad it's 4.0 open sourced as opposed to 3.31 or 5.0.

That said, imagine what FreeDOS could've done with it if the 4.0 code landed in their lap in 1994 to start with. They could have either ripped out those bad parts and turned into a "3.4" or tried to reimplement the good parts of 5.0 to make a "4.1"

I tried PAE RAM patch on XP once and OS started crashing left and right. The Creative's drivers are noticeably sloppier on old operating systems. Only reason I bothered trying 32-bit XP was for the damn DirectSound3D acceleration that refuses to work under 64-bit XP on my system.

The official 32-bit driver for my nForce 720a chipset's SATA controller (AHCI mode), that refuses to work on 32-bit XP for some reason, so I guess I don't like that combination either. 64-bit driver on 64-bit XP, that works as it should.

Maybe I'll try PAE patch on my laptop running Win10, if I ever get to upgrade it from 2 GB, before I replace the OS. If I'm ever going to bother at all, that AMD APU is hopelessly slow.

UCyborg wrote on 2025-04-28, 00:03:

I tried PAE RAM patch on XP once and OS started crashing left and right. The Creative's drivers are noticeably sloppier on old operating systems. Only reason I bothered trying 32-bit XP was for the damn DirectSound3D acceleration that refuses to work under 64-bit XP on my system.

The official 32-bit driver for my nForce 720a chipset's SATA controller (AHCI mode), that refuses to work on 32-bit XP for some reason, so I guess I don't like that combination either. 64-bit driver on 64-bit XP, that works as it should.

Maybe I'll try PAE patch on my laptop running Win10, if I ever get to upgrade it from 2 GB, before I replace the OS. If I'm ever going to bother at all, that AMD APU is hopelessly slow.

PAE was never intended as a full replacement for a 64bit OS, it was at best a temporary limited fix for the memory issue but it as you found out introduce a ton of other issues and crashes.

That said when PAE is used as intended for the purposes it was implemented for with specific programs it works really well. The funny thing is that 32bit operating systems can technically on paper address far more than 4Gb of memory with no issue, but the entire kernel and memory handler would have to be rewritten for that to happen, rewritten is such a way that it was easier to just create a 64 bit OS instead. The rewrite would also cause compatibility issues with 32bit software not expecting more than 4Gb of memory or designed to handle the larger set of memory pointers available.

The whole 32bit memory limitation is pretty interesting reading, since 4Gb is an arbitrary limit and not a hard limit.

I cant say Ive ever had a stability problem when Ive had PAE enabled on a WinXP system.
When you compare it to a 64bit OS then there is of course no comparison, 64bit will always win out, but the oft told tale that WinXP cant use more then 3.xxGb of RAM is wrong, it can address up to 64Gb of RAM with /PAE enabled.
Yes it can cause its own set of problems but that doesnt mean it cant do it and there is no point installing more than 4Gb of RAM.

The PAE patch is another matter to what I said above though. Adding a 3rd party patch always adds its own set of problems. But that allows something different anyway.