Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 

MrMateczko

Ultimate 98SE PC - Ultimate Disappointment

Recommended Posts

98SE    7
On 8/31/2017 at 11:44 AM, MrMateczko said:

Hello.
I'm back with more observations and things to say.

@rloew - I wish I had the XHDD utility again, I've deleted it in much anger that day, I won't bother sending another e-mail to the author. If I had it, I would test the RAM Patch Demo with the /M switch.
Also, I've tested the APMOFF program, and it shows that APM is not present, so that's why 98SE did not shutdown, why is there no APM?
I've tested the AHCISW.COM program. Both alone, and with "noint" switch, the program just hangs, you can see all of this here:

https://s26.postimg.org/os8qtdoo9/20170831_213516.jpg

@98SE - Installing anything, such as DirectX, or deleting a Folder with 50 files causes a delay proportionally to the amount and size of the files, due to Real Mode disk access.
Alongside 3DMark2001 SE, I also wanted to try out NFS Carbon (while installing it, I got the disk write error BSOD, which scared me), and maybe finally get GTA IV to work now that I had a 512MB GPU. With my previous rig, I got out of video memory errors with my GPU (6600 GT), which is false message, as GTA IV works fine under XP on the same GPU and rig. And also test out Fallout 3 and The Witcher 1 with a more powerful GPU, as I know those work under 98SE (albeit poorly), as I've done it on my previous rig.

As for 98SE as a whole, here's a quote (I've translated it myself) from a Polish guy which wrote here (I recommend translating it in Google Translate, interesting read): https://www.dobreprogramy.pl/wielkipiec/Przypomnijmy-co-to-naprawde-jest-okropny-system-czyli-pare-slow-o-Windows-Millennium,75140.html

As much as I love 98SE, I do agree with the quote.

GTA IV works properly in XP and probably improved performance with extra cores and running the entire game off a Ramdrive.  No comparison to running vs 98SE off a AHCI SATA hard drive you have issues with.  XP will work on this chipset.

https://support.rockstargames.com/hc/en-us/articles/200144866-PC-System-Requirements-for-GTA-IV

Need for Speed Carbon also better suited for XP.

https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/CYRI/Requirements/need-for-speed-carbon/10517?p=r

Fallout 3 perfect candidate for XP with Ramdisk install.

https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/CYRI/Requirements/fallout-3/10793?p=a

The Witcher 1 also another.

https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/the-witcher/10661

You should only choose 9X/ME specific software that can't be run on 2000 or XP for your 9X system use.  These four titles are XP compatible ones so you're going to see a vast improvement running them on XP on a quad core or better using a GTX 960 up to a Titan X and the game installed to the Ramdrive.

Maybe you know some exclusive 9X titles as these would be better candidates for stability testing.  I don't see the point in running them in an older OS where it will perform worse since you will be stuck at 1 core efficiency without a superior GPU from the GTX 900 series if the software already supports XP.  An AMD Radeon HD 7450 would perform way better than your card and use less wattage and have no fans to deal with on some models.  Save the GPU fan mileage on the hardcore 9X exclusives that don't run on XP.

As for 98SE OS as a whole, if it didn't include DOS compatibility or Pure DOS when it was released I don't think many would have used it except for MS Office products sort of like Windows 3.1.  95 was probably the worst in the early days of stability and DOS was always more stable and 98SE was improved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrMateczko    20

I know those games are best suited for XP or above. I'm just doing it just for fun, to see how much I can push 98SE to its limits.

I haven't encountered a single game I could not get to run under Win7 at all which does run on 98SE, no matter of what patching, DOSBox, or VM's I've used.

I'm all doing this in the name of (pointless) science. It does not make sense, but why should it?

Do you think we all use 98SE just because nothing works on XP/7/10? Of course not. Even @rloew uses modern Windows OSes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
98SE    7
4 hours ago, MrMateczko said:

I know those games are best suited for XP or above. I'm just doing it just for fun, to see how much I can push 98SE to its limits.

I haven't encountered a single game I could not get to run under Win7 at all which does run on 98SE, no matter of what patching, DOSBox, or VM's I've used.

I'm all doing this in the name of (pointless) science. It does not make sense, but why should it?

Do you think we all use 98SE just because nothing works on XP/7/10? Of course not. Even @rloew uses modern Windows OSes...

Yes that would probably be the "gamer's" most important use of 9X/ME but not a regular user who is not focused on that.  If there was a particular 9X/ME title that won't operate on XP and later those would be the titles worth spending the time / money to get working on an older or newer machine.  I'm aware there are some titles that were not programmed for XP and later and sometimes suffer compatibility problems.  But hearing your statement could indicate either "haven't tried enough software" but didn't find one that didn't work properly on XP and later or you haven't tried the ones that did have this OS compatibility issue yet since those titles may not have been of interest?

I haven't located such exclusive 9X titles and there are a bunch in XP I haven't even tried either as most of my software was DOS based so I can't comment on which 9X/ME titles just didn't work in XP and later but if you had run into any I would have tried testing them on your behalf to see if they operated.  I think the fun part for this was finally adding 98SE into my Multi OS setup.

I now have DOS, 98SE, 2K, XP, Vista, W7, W10 working on both Z77 and Z170.  I might add Win 3.11 for fun using the 98SE Boot Menu by adding DOS 5.0 to the list but since 9X pretty much runs everything from 3.X that I've seen and W8 and 8.1 didn't introduce any unique features breaking compatibility with W7 those later two can be eliminated to save space.  I'd just add W10 reluctantly on the end just for the DX12 feature.  One could remove Vista and W7 but and keep W10 but I am rather fond of Vista (originally I despised it and adored W7 then flip flopped) but W7 is just there due to compatibility / support similar to why people use XP over 2000.

But I do agree it would be fun to push 98SE to its limits but I think for the most part the gains are rather small ever since Sandy Bridge from each generation and since it's only 1 core you're tapping into I'm not sure if spending all that money on the next chipset just to see how many more frames or points you get higher on the benchmark is worth it.  And it's possible there might be a limit where any CPU performance gains have no discernible affect on the program.

I think in your case the biggest obstacle was you had put too many limits on the MB choice.  Anything smaller than ATX you're going to to run into restrictions unless you know for sure that motherboard and all the integrated peripherals have the proper 9X drivers.  Sometimes a dual or triple slot graphics cards can overlap your required PCI slot.  If more time could be spent in finding the right combination of PCI and PCIe slots and an ATX sized MB it probably would have not added more post install costs if you could have reused an older PCI sound card to avoid the need for working USB ports to test your USB sound card.

On my older P4 I didn't use the USB ports much on 98SE since a serial mouse and PS/2 keyboard did the job.  On the newer MBs if there is still one PS/2 port you don't need any USB card to use the USB mouse and USB keyboard.  And on the list of motherboards I presented you can still use a serial mouse on the Com Port like the old school way and use a PS/2 keyboard and avoid USB altogether.

After testing the network card I actually prefer to "not" have it installed as it added almost a "30" second delay before going to the desktop.  Without the network card booting to 98SE takes a second or two and this saves an extra slot being occupied.  If you do your internet surfing on 2000 or later and can use the onboard LAN.

 

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrMateczko    20

Seeing from here:

http://oc-esports.io/#!/round/osibs_s2rb

You get the most performance in 98SE from a good socket 775 CPU with a very high clock, so what you say is true.

I did not build this PC for 98SE in mind, this is my main PC!

I just wanted to see if my main PC could run 98SE with ease, just by buying the 7900 GTO. It obviously didn't :)

And yes, network drivers do prolong the boot time, I think this was fixed in ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
98SE    7
2 hours ago, MrMateczko said:

Seeing from here:

http://oc-esports.io/#!/round/osibs_s2rb

You get the most performance in 98SE from a good socket 775 CPU with a very high clock, so what you say is true.

I did not build this PC for 98SE in mind, this is my main PC!

I just wanted to see if my main PC could run 98SE with ease, just by buying the 7900 GTO. It obviously didn't :)

And yes, network drivers do prolong the boot time, I think this was fixed in ME.

Hmmm... you're telling me that network card boot delay lag in 98SE wasn't patched already by now and somehow Win ME has it fixed? :(

Bummer about that outcome for you.  If you shipped me the video card I'd try and test it for you and see what benchmarks it would give if that in some way would make you feel better knowing what it could have been.

Yeah, in my MB choices I chose wisely considering XP compatibility but 98SE and XP compatibility oddly go hand in hand.  Full ATX and PCI slots does make it a better candidate to run legacy hardware.

Your main PC is still possible for XP so it really isn't a total goner and as far as I can tell Z270 still functions.  Z370+ we shall see if Intel did any nasty changes even though getting rid of the eHCI was evil enough.  But I'd save your money until Intel starts handing out octocore desktop CPUs instead of their stale quadcores then we can think about investing. 

Some more important upgrades would be SATA 4.0, PCIe 4.0, USB 4.0, and 256GB of RAM MAX on board for starters not this 64GB bone throw.  Everything else is just tiny incremental ~%5 CPU boosts which no regular user is going to notice day to day surfing the web.  Try reducing the CPU wattage down from 65/35 Watts down to 20 Watts.  At least AMD finally came around with Ryzen to smack Intel's greedy hands for now and finally wake up with their Coffee Lake.  But who's drinking that brew?

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rloew    90

I don't think XP would be considered a "Modern" OS. I used to use Windows 10 to handle a couple of Websites that didn't work in Chrome 49.
Now I know I can access them in 98SE with the K-Meleon Browser. I haven't booted anything later than XP in months.

Windows 9x may be tied to one Core, not necessarily the Base Core, but I have an API to utilize the other Cores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×