Barley wrote on Yesterday, 22:17:

When I get a retro machine just the way I like it, I start planning backup parts. It's only going to get harder to find replacement parts so I make sure I always have backups.

Oh, there be backups 😅

I'm old enough to not need to build a retro rig. I built my surviving gaming box in 1999. Since then, I've only changed the case (because I misplaced the side panels and the front panel broke), and the power supply (which was no longer stable and not worth recapping). It's got a celery 300a @450 and 2 isa slots, which is all I need for DOS & Windows 95. There's all kinds of utilities still on there to slow things down if need be or do freaky memory hacks (qemm and junk like that). The one thing I managed to lose is the low level disk backup software, but it's easy enough to do that offline nowadays. I still have a 32-bit Windows 7 laptop to play later games that have protection. Anything later works on modern hardware. I happily chucked a dozen boxes, from a 286, 386s, a VLB something or other, a 486, a couple of pentiums, and a dual athlon space heater. I suppose all the cards, cpus, motherboards, and memory I chucked is CRINGE, so I won't say. Hey! I totally understand the attraction, but I'm happy to avoid any more busted knuckles. Carry on.

My systems are never "finished" as in i am constantly thinking of things to do with them, but after every checkpoint they are fully working. So at least I can use them and they don't sit around in a non working state.

Shponglefan wrote on Yesterday, 23:38:

I came up with a list of period correct systems from 1993 to 2000. Actually doing specs was pretty easy since I just went with the best-of options for each year.

Did build systems for 1994, 1995, and a pair for 1996. But then got distracted by other types of builds along the way, especially "all-in-one" builds and experimenting with Pentium 4 setups (imho, still a vastly underrated retro platform).

Have pretty much all the parts for the rest of the period correct builds, just haven't gotten around to building them yet.

What hardware did you go for on your 1996 builds? My planned machine, which is closest to 1996:

DOS 7 / Early Win95 (1993-1996)
DirectX 3, Glide 1
(Can slow to the speed of a 486 by disabling caches and using SETMUL)
Pentium MMX – 200-300Mhz (Jan 1997) with Front panel switch to control FSB between 66Mhz and 100Mhz
Gigabyte GA-5AX Super Socket 7
64Mb PC100 SDRAM
S3 Virge 2mb (1996) + Voodoo 1 4mb (Oct 1996)
Soundblaster 16 CT2230 and Diamond Monster Wavetable 2Mb
3.5" floppy drive 1.44mb
100Mb ZIP Drive
IDE CD ROM drive
HDD caddy for easy access to storage
Horizontal ATX Desktop PC
Gameport Joystick

I realise that AWE64 Gold is probably more period correct, but I want real OPL3 for my DOS games. I see this as being my primary DOS machine.

Barley wrote on Yesterday, 22:17:

When I get a retro machine just the way I like it, I start planning backup parts. It's only going to get harder to find replacement parts so I make sure I always have backups.

Yeah, I have similar thinking. I have spare parts for some of my planned builds. But some parts are so expensive now, that I just can't afford it. Maybe it would have been a possibility if I'd been less ambitious on the number of builds. Haha.

I only have one of AWE64 Gold and only one Geforce FX 5900 Ultra, and one Voodoo 3500, and one Radeon 9800 XT. Likewise there are some motherboards that are just really expensive now.

The only change I made to my builds in the last 3 years was turning my single core Tualatin Windows Me build into a dual core Coppermine Windows 2000 Pro workstation. Other than that.. They are all fairly done and over with, sitting in a closet, waiting for my retirement..

appiah4 wrote on Today, 06:15:

Other than that.. They are all fairly done and over with, sitting in a closet, waiting for my retirement..

Same here. I've pretty much acquired all the retro hardware that I wanted, and built the systems that I envisioned.

I did repurpose a couple of builds over the years, and retired a few as well. Basically, once I had gotten a clearer idea of what I needed, I trimmed down my collection accordingly.

appiah4 wrote on Today, 06:15:

They are all fairly done and over with, sitting in a closet, waiting for my retirement..

You can't play with them now? I still have 20yrs until retirement (I am currently 47), so I am not waiting that long!

I know it will be a multi-year project to get all of these PCs built. I have 10 new beige boxes waiting to be used, and two cases like this (but in the same silver colour as the drive bays, rather than being black):

Both of the silver cases need restoring though, as the plastic side panels are cracked, and one of them has a broken hinge on the door.

The two jet cases are for a high end WinXP DirectX 9 system (2x Geforce 7900 GTX SLI) and high end Vista DirectX 10 system (2x Geforce 285 SLI).

Joseph_Joestar wrote on Today, 07:08:

Same here. I've pretty much acquired all the retro hardware that I wanted, and built the systems that I envisioned.

I did repurpose a couple of builds over the years, and retired a few as well. Basically, once I had gotten a clearer idea of what I needed, I trimmed down my collection accordingly.

Yeah, my ultimate goal is to have a set of systems that are just ready for immediate use. Plus a test bench station so I can make temporary builds for experimenting with or to play any stubborn game that wont run on one of the permanent builds.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on Today, 05:55:

What hardware did you go for on your 1996 builds?

One is a Pentium 200 and the other Pentium Pro 200. Each system had otherwise identical specs.

Video: Matrox Mystique + Diamond Monster 3D
Audio: AWE64 Gold, GUS Extreme, Roland SCC-1
RAM: 64MB EDO

I wanted to see how a Pentium Pro would compare to a regular Pentium. In practice, the Pentium is a better DOS system.

My planned machine, which is closest to 1996: […]
Show full quote

My planned machine, which is closest to 1996:

DOS 7 / Early Win95 (1993-1996)
DirectX 3, Glide 1
(Can slow to the speed of a 486 by disabling caches and using SETMUL)
Pentium MMX – 200-300Mhz (Jan 1997) with Front panel switch to control FSB between 66Mhz and 100Mhz
Gigabyte GA-5AX Super Socket 7
64Mb PC100 SDRAM
S3 Virge 2mb (1996) + Voodoo 1 4mb (Oct 1996)
Soundblaster 16 CT2230 and Diamond Monster Wavetable 2Mb
3.5" floppy drive 1.44mb
100Mb ZIP Drive
IDE CD ROM drive
HDD caddy for easy access to storage
Horizontal ATX Desktop PC
Gameport Joystick

I realise that AWE64 Gold is probably more period correct, but I want real OPL3 for my DOS games. I see this as being my primary DOS machine.

That's a solid 1996/early 1997 era system.

Front panel switch to toggle FSB is interesting and will make throttling easier I imagine.

Shponglefan wrote on Today, 13:30:

One is a Pentium 200 and the other Pentium Pro 200. Each system had otherwise identical specs. […]
Show full quote

One is a Pentium 200 and the other Pentium Pro 200. Each system had otherwise identical specs.

Video: Matrox Mystique + Diamond Monster 3D
Audio: AWE64 Gold, GUS Extreme, Roland SCC-1
RAM: 64MB EDO

I wanted to see how a Pentium Pro would compare to a regular Pentium. In practice, the Pentium is a better DOS system.

Interesting experiment. I don't own any Pentium Pro. I see that as a more business oriented processor, and my focus is gaming. Though, I imagine it would do quite well at gaming?

Shponglefan wrote on Today, 13:30:

That's a solid 1996/early 1997 era system.

Front panel switch to toggle FSB is interesting and will make throttling easier I imagine.

Thanks! Hopefully! I have tested it with some games up to Unreal Tournament 99. It did better than I expected (25fps approx) at 512x384 with low settings. But I mostly intend it for DOS and early Win95 games. I will have a Voodoo 2 / Pentium II 400Mhz system for 1997-1998.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on Yesterday, 20:22:

kixs wrote on Yesterday, 19:41:

I only wanted one machine... my first PC as it was (286-16 from 1992). This was probably around 2012 and it still isn't finished 🤣

My first PC was a 286 also. Loved that thing! However the games I played on it (Duke Nukem 1 + 2, SimCity 1, Wolf3D, Prince of Persia etc), all run well, or even better, on my slowed down Pentium MMX. So, although the nostalgia was strong, I could not really justify it.

I want to experience the slowness. For example. Back in 1992 I would run Windows 3.1 + MS Word 2.0 on a 40MB hard drive that was Stackered to "80MB" and all of this on a standard 1MB of memory 🤣 If my memory serves me right, your could watch the whole Windows user interface being drawn element by element 😁

Never finish a build in the last 20 years i think... always "almost" finish

I usually only throw things together to satisfy some current curiosity. It's not about finishing anything besides maybe a game.

kixs wrote on Today, 16:20:

I want to experience the slowness. For example. Back in 1992 I would run Windows 3.1 + MS Word 2.0 on a 40MB hard drive that was Stackered to "80MB" and all of this on a standard 1MB of memory 🤣 If my memory serves me right, your could watch the whole Windows user interface being drawn element by element 😁

Yep, I remember the slowness well. I don't recall how much memory it had, but I know I tried Windows 3 on it and it took several minutes to open anything. I only really used it for DOS games and QuickBasic. I think mine had a 20Mb HDD. I liked the noises the HDD made. Very different to IDE drives.

All of my Macs just kinda solidify themselves, mostly because you can't do too much with them anyhow. My PCs are usually constantly mutating Chimera systems until I get another PC then both do something specific. I had a PC that I was swapping parts in and out of to be a high-end Socket 7 or a super low end one, until I got a 486 and a Pentium 3 board that did the giver and lower ends better anyhow, then the middle PC settled.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on Today, 14:18:

Interesting experiment. I don't own any Pentium Pro. I see that as a more business oriented processor, and my focus is gaming. Though, I imagine it would do quite well at gaming?

It depends. The Pentium Pro is faster than a regular Pentium in some situations, for example in Quake (with FastVid) or Win9x games. Other the other hand, it is much slower in build-engine games (e.g. Duke Nukem 3D) compared to a regular Pentium.

For DOS gaming, I think a normal Pentium or Pentium MMX system is more ideal. And Windows 9x gaming, I'd go with at least a Pentium II.

Shponglefan wrote on Today, 13:30:

Thanks! Hopefully! I have tested it with some games up to Unreal Tournament 99. It did better than I expected (25fps approx) at 512x384 with low settings. But I mostly intend it for DOS and early Win95 games. I will have a Voodoo 2 / Pentium II 400Mhz system for 1997-1998.

Pentium MMX is perfect for late DOS and early Win95 era. I consider it an ideal 1997 era processor, just at the time when Windows 95 gaming was starting to take over, but before Windows 98 landed.

For 1998 and beyond, that's when a Pentium II/III system would be better.

Shponglefan wrote on Today, 19:00:

It depends. The Pentium Pro is faster than a regular Pentium in some situations, for example in Quake (with FastVid) or Win9x games. Other the other hand, it is much slower in build-engine games (e.g. Duke Nukem 3D) compared to a regular Pentium.

Ah, yeah. I think the same is true of Pentium II for build games.

Shponglefan wrote on Today, 19:00:

For DOS gaming, I think a normal Pentium or Pentium MMX system is more ideal. And Windows 9x gaming, I'd go with at least a Pentium II.

Pentium MMX is perfect for late DOS and early Win95 era. I consider it an ideal 1997 era processor, just at the time when Windows 95 gaming was starting to take over, but before Windows 98 landed.

For 1998 and beyond, that's when a Pentium II/III system would be better.

Yes, I agree with you there. I plan to use each machine with a fairly strict start and and year. Of course most games can be played more smoothly on a faster machine. But if I do that then the slower machines will never be used.

Also, just because a game appears to work, doesn't mean it's not subtly broken due to being run on faster hardware than existed when it released. Sometimes physics is broken for example. For the most part I am not patching games. I install from original disk(s) and play.