Looking for a new house. Errhm... housing. And found this Phanteks Enthoo 719 which can manifest a full size E-ATX board, to be more precise and less vague, a SSI EEB board.

Work in progress!

I started to put together a somewhat high end 486 DOS build. When finished, it will be the fastest 486 I have, and fastest pure DOS machine.

It has Zida 4DPS V2.11 MB with 256kb cache, AMD DX4 120, 8MB RAM (possibly install more, although for DOS it is pretty much useless), Diamond Stealth S3 868 PCI card (which is my original card from a Pentium I got in 1995), 1GB Western Digital Caviar HDD, Creative Infra 1800 CD-ROM drive (missing the remote, but looks neat), CT2800 sound card (one of those Vibra cards with OPL3), Midi Systems MPU-401 card and 3COM Etherlink III ISA ethernet. While slapping the thing together I upgraded the S3 video RAM to 2MB. Although pretty much useless to DOS, but finally I got to do it and it could be useful for some future Pentium/Win build etc.

I just finished installing the DOS and will continue tomorrow or sunday depending on other life stuff. I can't confirm if everything works, I haven't tested the SB16 or network cards before, but so far everything seems to go just fine.

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2023-08-18, 19:50:

8MB RAM (possibly install more, although for DOS it is pretty much useless)

IIRC, Under a Killing Moon can take advantage of 16 MB of RAM. So there is at least one use case for it. 😉

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-08-18, 20:30:

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2023-08-18, 19:50:

8MB RAM (possibly install more, although for DOS it is pretty much useless)

IIRC, Under a Killing Moon can take advantage of 16 MB of RAM. So there is at least one use case for it. 😉

Should’ve known, because there is always at least one outlier, no matter what the subject is 🤣

I actually tried two 8MB sticks I had in my bin, but I couldn’t get the system to boot with either of the sticks. I need to test those in some other system at some point, but either those sticks are defective or Zida just doesn’t like them for some reason. I may have couple of 8MB sticks available still, but I just wanted to get the system going at this point. And RAM stick swap is a pain with Zida, at least with the case I have: RAM slots are so near the top edge of the case that with the top most slot you have two options for installing a stick: you either unscrew the PSU and move it aside. Or you remove the whole motherboard from the case.

Found in my stash'o boards what is probably the nicest integrated 462 uATX mobo that plays nice with 98SE.

ASUS A7N8X-VM/400 flashed w/ CT-7NIF2 BIOS. I like the integrated GF4MX (which IIRC is a 440, Crush17 being pretty much a iGP variant of the ole MX440) and with 512 MB total RAM installed, out of which 32MB are shared for the GPU, it plays nice enough with 98SE's nitpicks.

CPU is a Duron 1.6GHz that came with it. At one point I did think of swapping in an AXP chip but then I figured the Duron would be enough.

I built a GBS-Control. The case is 3D-printed with a marble finish. I used the clockmod recommended in the wiki and added a RGB-SCART. The soldering was somewhat difficult for me as a novice - no picture of the inside since some people will take offence to the amount of hot glue 😀. The tutorials doesn't really show you just how small some of the components are. But I got there in the end and the picture is great for the price. Im going to use it mostly for console gaming but im curious to try it with my Amiga and Atari.

https://github.com/ramapcsx2/gbs-control

I have boxes of untested stuff and I thought it could look nice if I put some of this stuff on the… wall/roof/aka too lazy to properly insulate here … of my computing area …

DerBaum wrote on 2023-08-19, 18:43:

B1CB0115-7E7A-4692-A0D6-4970A4CD2FF5.jpeg

I have boxes of untested stuff and I thought it could look nice if I put some of this stuff on the… wall/roof/aka too lazy to properly insulate here … of my computing area …

Why I am reminded of people hanging up their laundry to dry? 😆

That is a cool system for sorting / hanging motherboards. Any issues with stress on the corner joints? I'm assuming the PCB plastic should be tough enough to hold up.

Had a very productive morning.

First, managed to revive a Soyo SY-5EMA+ 1.0 Super Socket 7 motherboard. I'd previously replaced a bunch of capacitors on it (at least 1 was defective). But the board would not POST.

After testing voltages and everything seemed fine there, decided to reflash the BIOS with a slightly newer version from Retro Web. That did the trick; the board POSTed and booted up.

I then decided to use it to test a bunch of AGP cards I'd pulled from various systems. Much to my pleasant surprise every single one worked.

There still could be issues with some of these cards, since I haven't fully tested them yet. But I took it as a good sign that all of them displayed a proper image on powering up.

I upgraded my Windows 2000 (Vanilla) retro rocket from a Core i5-3570 to a Xeon E3-1280V2. It's an excellent match for my Gigabyte GA-P75-D3 since the board doesn't have video outputs.

I've spent the morning installing Windows 2000 Advanced Server on a 120GB SSD so the OS can make use of all 8 threads. It seems pretty snappy so far.

I've also discovered that 3DMark01 really hates hyperthreading. It works just fine with all four cores enabled and hyperthreading disabled. But, as soon as I enable hyperthreading, 3DMark01 complains about the DirectX version. Weird.

fosterwj03 wrote on 2023-08-19, 18:59:

I upgraded my Windows 2000 (Vanilla) retro rocket from a Core i5-3570 to a Xeon E3-1280V2. It's an excellent match for my Gigabyte GA-P75-D3 since the board doesn't have video outputs.

I've spent the morning installing Windows 2000 Advanced Server on a 120GB SSD so the OS can make use of all 8 threads. It seems pretty snappy so far.

I've also discovered that 3DMark01 really hates hyperthreading. It works just fine with all four cores enabled and hyperthreading disabled. But, as soon as I enable hyperthreading, 3DMark01 complains about the DirectX version. Weird.

Sounds great!

I presume there's a "for fun" angle (of course!), but there are some caveats to be wary (of which you may already be aware):

You don't need Advanced server for multi-core or hyperthreaded machines. It is licensed by socket up to 8 physical sockets. Regular server is licensed up to 4 sockets. Professional is licensed up to 2 sockets. You won't see any advantage performance advantage for server versions. You could have a million threads and cores on a single socketed machine, and Professional is still the requirement.

Windows 2000 has no idea about hyper-threading (or cores for that matter). You should disable hyper-threading for Windows 2000 (and NT 4.0). You are likely hurting performance as the OS thinks they are actual physical processors. You can get away with multi-core, but still it not designed with cores in mind. With that said, to make sure you are getting your money's worth, check this thread: https://msfn.org/board/topic/174127-info-on-w … r-cpu-machines/ Alternatively, upgrade to Windows XP/2003. I know it's not the goal, but these are the first Microsoft OSs to recognize multi-core and hyper-threading.

If it's RAM you're concerned with, Professional and Server support/licensed up to 4GB, and 8GB is the maximum for Advanced Server. If you want more, you'd have to upgrade to Datacenter for support as high as 32GB.

I just did dumpster div. at recy.co. , tomorrow I will see what keep what take back. And if I take any other/additional inv.stuff...hmm.. decizions decizions.

Meatball wrote on 2023-08-19, 19:26:

Sounds great! […]
Show full quote

fosterwj03 wrote on 2023-08-19, 18:59:

I upgraded my Windows 2000 (Vanilla) retro rocket from a Core i5-3570 to a Xeon E3-1280V2. It's an excellent match for my Gigabyte GA-P75-D3 since the board doesn't have video outputs.

I've spent the morning installing Windows 2000 Advanced Server on a 120GB SSD so the OS can make use of all 8 threads. It seems pretty snappy so far.

I've also discovered that 3DMark01 really hates hyperthreading. It works just fine with all four cores enabled and hyperthreading disabled. But, as soon as I enable hyperthreading, 3DMark01 complains about the DirectX version. Weird.

Sounds great!

I presume there's a "for fun" angle (of course!), but there are some caveats to be wary (of which you may already be aware):

You don't need Advanced server for multi-core or hyperthreaded machines. It is licensed by socket up to 8 physical sockets. Regular server is licensed up to 4 sockets. Professional is licensed up to 2 sockets. You won't see any advantage performance advantage for server versions. You could have a million threads and cores on a single socketed machine, and Professional is still the requirement.

Windows 2000 has no idea about hyper-threading (or cores for that matter). You should disable hyper-threading for Windows 2000 (and NT 4.0). You are likely hurting performance as the OS thinks they are actual physical processors. You can get away with multi-core, but still it not designed with cores in mind. With that said, to make sure you are getting your money's worth, check this thread: https://msfn.org/board/topic/174127-info-on-w … r-cpu-machines/ Alternatively, upgrade to Windows XP/2003. I know it's not the goal, but these are the first Microsoft OSs to recognize multi-core and hyper-threading.

If it's RAM you're concerned with, Professional and Server support/licensed up to 4GB, and 8GB is the maximum for Advanced Server. If you want more, you'd have to upgrade to Datacenter for support as high as 32GB.

You might be thinking about Windows XP.

While you're generally correct about the licensing, Windows 2000 treats each core (and virtual thread) as though they are separate socketed processors. I need to use the server version (or the server hack) to allow Windows to use more than two cores.

It is true that Windows 2000 was never officially updated to optimize hyperthreading, but it does see all eight virtual processors when enabled on the Xeon. While not optimal, multithreaded apps will use all of the threads.

It is just for fun. I don't really have a use case for Windows 2000, but I love retro rockets.

fosterwj03 wrote on 2023-08-19, 19:53:

You might be thinking about Windows XP. […]
Show full quote

Meatball wrote on 2023-08-19, 19:26:

Sounds great! […]
Show full quote

fosterwj03 wrote on 2023-08-19, 18:59:

I upgraded my Windows 2000 (Vanilla) retro rocket from a Core i5-3570 to a Xeon E3-1280V2. It's an excellent match for my Gigabyte GA-P75-D3 since the board doesn't have video outputs.

I've spent the morning installing Windows 2000 Advanced Server on a 120GB SSD so the OS can make use of all 8 threads. It seems pretty snappy so far.

I've also discovered that 3DMark01 really hates hyperthreading. It works just fine with all four cores enabled and hyperthreading disabled. But, as soon as I enable hyperthreading, 3DMark01 complains about the DirectX version. Weird.

Sounds great!

I presume there's a "for fun" angle (of course!), but there are some caveats to be wary (of which you may already be aware):

You don't need Advanced server for multi-core or hyperthreaded machines. It is licensed by socket up to 8 physical sockets. Regular server is licensed up to 4 sockets. Professional is licensed up to 2 sockets. You won't see any advantage performance advantage for server versions. You could have a million threads and cores on a single socketed machine, and Professional is still the requirement.

Windows 2000 has no idea about hyper-threading (or cores for that matter). You should disable hyper-threading for Windows 2000 (and NT 4.0). You are likely hurting performance as the OS thinks they are actual physical processors. You can get away with multi-core, but still it not designed with cores in mind. With that said, to make sure you are getting your money's worth, check this thread: https://msfn.org/board/topic/174127-info-on-w … r-cpu-machines/ Alternatively, upgrade to Windows XP/2003. I know it's not the goal, but these are the first Microsoft OSs to recognize multi-core and hyper-threading.

If it's RAM you're concerned with, Professional and Server support/licensed up to 4GB, and 8GB is the maximum for Advanced Server. If you want more, you'd have to upgrade to Datacenter for support as high as 32GB.

You might be thinking about Windows XP.

While you're generally correct about the licensing, Windows 2000 treats each core (and virtual thread) as though they are separate socketed processors. I need to use the server version (or the server hack) to allow Windows to use more than two cores.

It is true that Windows 2000 was never officially updated to optimize hyperthreading, but it does see all eight virtual processors when enabled on the Xeon. While not optimal, multithreaded apps will use all of the threads.

It is just for fun. I don't really have a use case for Windows 2000, but I love retro rockets.

That Windows 2000 would only use the first two cores, I had no idea, so I learned something there. Yes, it does see eight virtual processors, but it treats them like physical processors as we've both outlined. And because hyperthreading shares many of the same resources with the primary core, they will have resource scheduling issues. It may be what is causing 3DMark issues. Anyway, I'm glad I responded as I learned something new!

Installed windows 98 on my ibm ThinkPad 760cd. Now I exchanged the old HDD to CF because of noise. But I wonder, maybe it is possible to lubricate old HDDs?

Meatball wrote on 2023-08-19, 20:16:

fosterwj03 wrote on 2023-08-19, 19:53:

You might be thinking about Windows XP. […]
Show full quote

Meatball wrote on 2023-08-19, 19:26:

Sounds great! […]
Show full quote

Sounds great!

I presume there's a "for fun" angle (of course!), but there are some caveats to be wary (of which you may already be aware):

You don't need Advanced server for multi-core or hyperthreaded machines. It is licensed by socket up to 8 physical sockets. Regular server is licensed up to 4 sockets. Professional is licensed up to 2 sockets. You won't see any advantage performance advantage for server versions. You could have a million threads and cores on a single socketed machine, and Professional is still the requirement.

Windows 2000 has no idea about hyper-threading (or cores for that matter). You should disable hyper-threading for Windows 2000 (and NT 4.0). You are likely hurting performance as the OS thinks they are actual physical processors. You can get away with multi-core, but still it not designed with cores in mind. With that said, to make sure you are getting your money's worth, check this thread: https://msfn.org/board/topic/174127-info-on-w … r-cpu-machines/ Alternatively, upgrade to Windows XP/2003. I know it's not the goal, but these are the first Microsoft OSs to recognize multi-core and hyper-threading.

If it's RAM you're concerned with, Professional and Server support/licensed up to 4GB, and 8GB is the maximum for Advanced Server. If you want more, you'd have to upgrade to Datacenter for support as high as 32GB.

You might be thinking about Windows XP.

While you're generally correct about the licensing, Windows 2000 treats each core (and virtual thread) as though they are separate socketed processors. I need to use the server version (or the server hack) to allow Windows to use more than two cores.

It is true that Windows 2000 was never officially updated to optimize hyperthreading, but it does see all eight virtual processors when enabled on the Xeon. While not optimal, multithreaded apps will use all of the threads.

It is just for fun. I don't really have a use case for Windows 2000, but I love retro rockets.

That Windows 2000 would only use the first two cores, I had no idea, so I learned something there. Yes, it does see eight virtual processors, but it treats them like physical processors as we've both outlined. And because hyperthreading shares many of the same resources with the primary core, they will have resource scheduling issues. It may be what is causing 3DMark issues. Anyway, I'm glad I responded as I learned something new!

Not to blow your mind too much, but I also use this computer to run Windows NT 3.51 on a separate SSD. It will definately use the 4 physical cores, but I haven't had a chance to test hyperthreading yet. I don't think it will see the virtual processors, though (NT 4 doesn't on my i7-2600k).

I can atest win2k working on Phenom 2 Black Edition(full cores,pached). Never tested anything more powerfull/newer.

Win2K Pro licensenindeed caps out at 2 processors, no limits on Win2K Server though.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-08-19, 18:45:

Why I am reminded of people hanging up their laundry to dry? 😆

That is a cool system for sorting / hanging motherboards. Any issues with stress on the corner joints? I'm assuming the PCB plastic should be tough enough to hold up.

Thats exactly what the area was used before i took over... The Wooden thing they are hanging on was the point where the lines for the clothes were attached 😁

I am 100 percent sure that inserting a card into the board in a case will stress it way more.
They are hanging there since 2 hours. 😁
The hooks are just insulated solid core copper wire. And it didnt feel like they were stressed at all.
The exploded caps on some of them are a bigger concern 😁

Contacted Adventech about the PCA-6147/6137 rev 2B SBC. I had done this with previous SBC based on socket 5 430FX successfully.

Cheers,