|
Post by zellsf on Feb 20, 2019 3:38:53 GMT -5
Ummm dude... double-check Diablo II's system requirements. Its minimum is a 233mhz PC with 32mb of RAM running Windows 95/98 and with Direct X 6.1 installed (for reference, Direct X 6 premiered with Win98 and DX9 premiered with XP). an XP comp is OVERKILL for Diablo II. For some reason Blizzard's official site lists something much higher but the thing I quoted is what's on the game's own box and readme file. Maybe I should have worded it a bit differently, Windows 98 might run Diablo II well, but XP is more stable than Windows 98, so running Diablo II on it is much more optimal. That said, I wouldn't go by the system requirements on the box of an online-focused game that has seen a lot of updates since then.
|
|
|
Post by zerker on Feb 21, 2019 19:10:37 GMT -5
Unfortunately true for Blizzard games especially, when the latest patches won't even run on Windows 9x anymore My retro PC build is pretty similar to edmonddantes 's machine, be it a little bit slower with a Pentium 3-450 running on an Intel SE440BX-2 board. Same video card, but I went with the Sound Blaster AWE64. While you give up the authentic OPL3 synth, the replacement isn't bad, and you get onboard wavetable synth and no hanging note bug at the same time. Nowadays it's probably best to go with either an SD or CF to IDE adaptor and have it externally accessible so you can swap drives. I actually have a dedicated Win 98 drive as well as a Dos 6.2 drive and a bunch of other mess around drives. It's much easier than trying to set up a partition scheme and a boot manager. For speed, there are actually a number of options: - Disabling cache, which should work for anyone. Usually a fairly substantial drop. For my machine, it results in ~286 speeds.
- ACPI throttle modes, which if supported, allows between 1/8 and full speed in steps of 1/8.
- Programmable multipliers. Sometimes you can do this in BIOS, sometimes via jumpers, and sometimes in software. Support varies wildly based on processor.
- Running software in the background to eat CPU cycles. This can be a bit iffy, but the well-known moslo utility does this.
- The turbo button, though this likely won't be an option. AFAIK, only AT-class machines (e.g. first gen Pentiums and older) have these.
For tools, here are what I use: Setmul, which will do options 1 and 3 above. Throttle, which will do options 1 and 2, though if you aren't careful it will do both at the same time! fdapm (aka Free DOS APM), which will do option 2 above, as well as give you the option to reboot or shutdown your PC. The Marvin sub-forum of Vogons is generally a better place if you have more questions, or want to learn more about your options.
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Feb 21, 2019 19:33:55 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean, Zell, about WinXP being "more stable." Well okay, I kinda do, but the last time I had stability problems with Win98SE (First Ed was a different beast), I didn't know crap about taking care of it and this was back when you could still do internet with Win98, which of course introduced viruses and stuff. For a completely offline, gaming-only machine? Win98 Second Edition should have very few issues.
To be fair, same is true of XP.
Also, the OP said he wanted true DOS mode. Windows 98 provides this. XP forces you to use an emulator like Dosbox.
One other thing worth considering is that very often, when a game was designed with Win 3.1/95/98, it actually will be a pain to run in XP. Sometimes there are official patches or updates re-releases, but most of the time you're stuck jumping through hoops of fan made workaround to the point where it honestly becomes easier to just either A) load up a virtual machine (I once did this for Amber: Journeys Beyond, which is an excellent game BTW) or else B) just build a real Win98 comp.
|
|
|
Post by zellsf on Feb 25, 2019 5:40:15 GMT -5
One other thing worth considering is that very often, when a game was designed with Win 3.1/95/98, it actually will be a pain to run in XP. Very often? I rarely had problems when I had an XP computer. It will have some compatibility with older titles, yes, but not to the degree that your post implies and at the benefit of supporting later XP-only titles. Other games are off-topic in a discussion about whether or not XP is best suited to run Diablo II though I'm not sure what you mean, Zell, about WinXP being "more stable." Well okay, I kinda do, but the last time I had stability problems with Win98SE (First Ed was a different beast), I didn't know crap about taking care of it OP won't know how to "take care of it" either, so it will be really unstable. Even in a best case scenario, Windows 98 is still significantly less stable than Windows XP.
|
|
|
Post by zerker on Feb 25, 2019 17:37:50 GMT -5
I can think of several 9x games that have problems with XP off the top of my head: Thief, SS2, Thief 2 without fan patches Windows 9x (non-accelerated) version of Mechwarrior 2 Moto Racer (with 3D acceleration enabled) Most "Need for Speed" games before Porsche Unleashed
I've found that games that require Windows XP will often run fine on Windows 7-10 as well. The same can't be said for games needing Windows 9x.
Windows 98 is plenty stable for just a basic games machine. Install Windows, video drivers, sound drivers and Direct X then your games. It's not like you're using it for day-to-day productivity.
But, at the end of the day, you'll have to pick what range of years you plan to target and compromise on the rest. I aimed for a machine from roughly 2000, which gets me the widest breadth of years that I would otherwise have trouble running. I did set up an XP dual boot, and even run a second video card (GeForce 2 MX 440 for that config), but it's still pretty underpowered for any XP stuff. I find I don't really use that config for anything right now...
|
|
|
Post by zellsf on Feb 26, 2019 3:23:40 GMT -5
I can think of several 9x games that have problems with XP off the top of my head: Thief, SS2, Thief 2 without fan patches Windows 9x (non-accelerated) version of Mechwarrior 2 Moto Racer (with 3D acceleration enabled) Most "Need for Speed" games before Porsche Unleashed He said often though, and naming a few times it has happened doesn't really collaborate that all too well. If it really was often you would be able to name far more titles. I also seem to remember NFS2 SE and NFS III working just fine on XP. I've found that games that require Windows XP will often run fine on Windows 7-10 as well. Not without patches/workarounds for a few of them. Not different than running 98 games on XP in that regard. Windows 98 is plenty stable for just a basic games machine. Install Windows, video drivers, sound drivers and Direct X then your games. It's not like you're using it for day-to-day productivity. That's still a lot of things to be doing in a less stable environment. And in the scenario of wanting to play Diablo II a lot of people would also want to set up networking.
|
|
|
Post by zerker on Feb 26, 2019 19:19:56 GMT -5
He said often though, and naming a few times it has happened doesn't really collaborate that all too well. If it really was often you would be able to name far more titles. Oh please. It's not like I own hundreds of Windows games released between 95 and 2000. Or that I've tried to run specifically on XP to remember compatibility problems. For me personally it was enough of a selection to make the OS choice worthwhile. For a long time I actually ran a single modern PC only, and made do with workarounds, fan patches and DosBox. I even sold my copy of Moto Racer because I wasn't happy with what you'd have to make do with on a modern PC. But, after a while, I just... wanted to have that old hardware again.
I've found that games that require Windows XP will often run fine on Windows 7-10 as well. Not without patches/workarounds for a few of them. Not different than running 98 games on XP in that regard. Maybe I'm just misremembering. I haven't really wanted to revisit 2002-2006 era PC games in a while.
Windows 98 is plenty stable for just a basic games machine. Install Windows, video drivers, sound drivers and Direct X then your games. It's not like you're using it for day-to-day productivity. That's still a lot of things to be doing in a less stable environment. And in the scenario of wanting to play Diablo II a lot of people would also want to set up networking. What are you talking about? Standard system install = a lot of things? What I'm trying to say is: if you don't use an OS as a daily driver and accurate crud and random software along the way, it usually stays quite stable. I've never had any system problems with my Win 98 SE install; not a single unexpected crash or BSOD.
At the end of the day, putting together a vintage PC is a luxury if you are sufficiently nostalgic for old hardware. You will want to pick a machine to cover the age range of games you are most interested in. If that's mid-2000s, then great, go with XP. If that's 2000 and earlier, go with 9x. If you hate Windows, just install DOS alone. But think about what you want to run when planning your hardware and OS choice. The OP was talking about running the King's Quest Collection on original hardware, so XP would be a terrible choice for that. But 9x would be a poor choice if you want to run Thief 3 without any fuss.
|
|
|
Post by zellsf on Feb 27, 2019 3:37:31 GMT -5
He said often though, and naming a few times it has happened doesn't really collaborate that all too well. If it really was often you would be able to name far more titles. Oh please. It's not like I own hundreds of Windows games released between 95 and 2000. Or that I've tried to run specifically on XP to remember compatibility problems. For me personally it was enough of a selection to make the OS choice worthwhile. For a long time I actually ran a single modern PC only, and made do with workarounds, fan patches and DosBox. I even sold my copy of Moto Racer because I wasn't happy with what you'd have to make do with on a modern PC. But, after a while, I just... wanted to have that old hardware again.
I've played hundreds of Windows games released between 95 and 2000 on Windows XP too. If you specifically set up a XP computer now, it's entirely possible you've introduced other compatibility problems? Faster/Multi-core CPUs, newer DirectX versions, newer graphic card drivers, SP2/SP3... What are you talking about? Standard system install = a lot of things? What I'm trying to say is: if you don't use an OS as a daily driver and accurate crud and random software along the way, it usually stays quite stable. I've never had any system problems with my Win 98 SE install; not a single unexpected crash or BSOD. Windows 9x altogether made BSOD a mainstream term, it wasn't just ME. If you've never had an unexpected BSOD on a OS that BSODs if a removable device is removed while being accessed, I'd say you're exceptionally lucky. Also yes, a standard (Windows 98 SE) system install (+Direct X & Drivers) is a lot of things. Not for someone like you who has done it a 100 times maybe, but for everyone else it is.
|
|
|
Post by zerker on Feb 27, 2019 18:23:06 GMT -5
No, my compatibility problems were purely from memory running contemporary Windows XP machines between 2002 and 2008 or so. Running XP on a modern machine is an exercise in disaster, with all the SATA (and now NVMe) chipset issues preventing even basic install, not to mention lack of GPT or UEFI support. I ran Windows 98 SE back in the day too (and 95 and 3.1 before that). I certainly don't have any substantial BSOD memories; nothing that would make me consider Windows 98 as a whole to be unstable. I don't doubt that there are conditions that are prevalent at causing BSOD, but basic games use isn't that. Sure, if you start installing unofficlal patches on the OS to try to get not-designed-for features like USB Mass Storage support, you're going to introduce instabilities. Don't do that
Now Windows 3.1 on the other hand... that thing was a mess and a half for daily use. There's nothing like having one misbehaved program take down your entire OS Also yes, a standard (Windows 98 SE) system install (+Direct X & Drivers) is a lot of things. Not for someone like you who has done it a 100 times maybe, but for everyone else it is. The same could be said for ANY operating system install. The only extra step compared to say, an XP install, is needing to boot from a boot disk and partition the drive first. Setting up a vintage computer for the first time will necessarily be a bunch of learning anyways; it's all part of the fun. Once the OS is on the drive, running three installers isn't much of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Feb 27, 2019 22:10:32 GMT -5
Most of my "taking care of" Win98SE is simply the normal stuff you should do anyway--run defrag every so often, don't install tons of crap, don't get on the internet with it, and in my case I sometimes run registry cleaners (I have three and they're all pretty much "click this and watch 'em go"... one is called RegCleaner, another is called Eusing Registry Cleaner, and the last is an old version of CCleaner). I still do many of these even in Windows 7, so 98SE isn't harder to use in that regard.
More advice I'd suggest is: Just install Direct X 8 and then deny any other program that wants to install a different version. Same goes for stuff like Quicktime... just install QT5 and, unless the game really won't work with it, keep just the one version.
I also use CCleaner to make sure there's no unnecessary crap that auto-boots with my session.
... As for XP compatibility.... all I can say is every time I tried to play a Win98 or earlier game on XP, it was a crapshoot. Sometimes it would work out of the box (Half-Life 1), other times it would need tons of fan patches and even then, still might not work (Command & Conquer Gold Edition, Amber Journeys Beyond... I never got either one to work on XP or other modern OS). IMO its easiest just to avoid the issue entirely by playing the game on Win98. Any game with a 16-bit installer simply won't install on XP, as well... so no Journeyman Project Turbo (that's why GOG instead lets you buy Journeyman Project: Pegasus Prime, which is a retelling of the first game but designed from the ground up for modern Windows systems.... both are actually very good, but I have a slight preference for Turbo).
|
|
|
Post by zellsf on Feb 28, 2019 5:21:12 GMT -5
No, my compatibility problems were purely from memory running contemporary Windows XP machines between 2002 and 2008 or so. 2008 is fairly late, there's multiple hardware and software incompatibilities introduced in that time span, hell, that time span includes SP3, Core 2 Duo was introduced in 2006... Now Windows 3.1 on the other hand... that thing was a mess and a half for daily use. There's nothing like having one misbehaved program take down your entire OS Also yes, a standard (Windows 98 SE) system install (+Direct X & Drivers) is a lot of things. Not for someone like you who has done it a 100 times maybe, but for everyone else it is. The same could be said for ANY operating system install. The only extra step compared to say, an XP install, is needing to boot from a boot disk and partition the drive first. Setting up a vintage computer for the first time will necessarily be a bunch of learning anyways; it's all part of the fun. Once the OS is on the drive, running three installers isn't much of a problem. That's a really weird thing to prefix with "only".
OP said he wanted to play games on real hardware. He did not say anything about wanting to spend hours troubleshooting hardware/software even if you find it fun.
Any game with a 16-bit installer simply won't install on XP, as well... Um, I've run lots of 16-bit installers on Windows XP without issue? Hell I've run lots of them on Windows 7 without issue. Sure, some of them won't work, but most of them should.
|
|
|
Post by zerker on Feb 28, 2019 18:33:36 GMT -5
For sure, additional compatibility issues were introduced in the span that I used XP. I don't know exactly how or what they would have affected beyond the games that I individually tried and remembered having problems with. There were probably games I owned that I didn't bother replaying during that period. There are also games I picked up that were intended for Windows 9x that I didn't play until after I moved on from XP, so I can't say if they had any issues with XP itself, or just later OSes. To your point, some of the games I had trouble with on SP2/3 on XP might have been fine on an earlier release of the OS. *shrug*edmonddantes is thinking of 64-bit Windows, which was an option on XP, but not particularly popular. The same could be said for ANY operating system install. The only extra step compared to say, an XP install, is needing to boot from a boot disk and partition the drive first. Setting up a vintage computer for the first time will necessarily be a bunch of learning anyways; it's all part of the fun. Once the OS is on the drive, running three installers isn't much of a problem. That's a really weird thing to prefix with "only". OP said he wanted to play games on real hardware. He did not say anything about wanting to spend hours troubleshooting hardware/software even if you find it fun. Eh, yes and no. It's not like it takes very long. If you don't find researching and playing with retro hardware and software fun, then setting up a vintage PC is the wrong activity
|
|
|
Post by zaphie on Mar 1, 2019 14:28:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eatersthemanfool on Mar 1, 2019 23:19:49 GMT -5
Interesting. That might be worth checking out.
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Mar 3, 2019 23:25:59 GMT -5
Yeah, PCem sounds like the kind of thing I wish existed decades ago.
You strictly speaking don't have to partition drives (and by the way this is something you still have to do with virtualizers in my experience)... its just that its usually a good idea. However if your hard drive is like 40gb or less you don't have to worry about partitioning, just make sure its formatted in FAT32 (and Windows 98 basically does this automatically)
|
|