|
Many motherboards still offer an IDE emulation mode for your SATA connected drives, and there are Windows 98 drivers for some SATA setups that can be used in Windows 95. If you really want to do it, it's still possible, albeit a huge pain in the rear end! But that's what you get for attempting to run a 22 year old OS on 1 year old hardware.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
As a mental exercise, whats the fastest hardware Win98 can still run on with official/unofficial driver support? I know XP officially at most goes up to 3770K and Fury X.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Many motherboards still offer an IDE emulation mode for your SATA connected drives, and there are Windows 98 drivers for some SATA setups that can be used in Windows 95. If you really want to do it, it's still possible, albeit a huge pain in the rear end! But that's what you get for attempting to run a 22 year old OS on 1 year old hardware. Interesting, I hadn't thought about the legacy hardware approach for SATA. I didn't even know there were SATA cards in 1998, it would be something like another 10 years before I got a SATA drive. But yeah, if you're still running Windows 98 then you have a real good reason for doing it. About 5 years ago I was at a university surplus sale and picked up what was a pretty nice CCD film scanner that does 4x5, it's not state of the art by modern standards but it pretty handily outperforms your average photo flatbed. Downside, it's SCSI. Even at the time I picked it up it was a struggle, so I did the legacy hardware thing. As far as I can tell the last PCI card with SCSI support on Windows Vista or above is the Adaptec AHA-2940, with an emulated 64-bit driver. They removed the driver in Win7 but it still works if you manually install it. I have been out of it for a bit now, I haven't even looked to see what support is going to be like on Windows 10.  At some point you just give in and start maintaining a legacy system on legacy hardware and software. There are a lottttttttt of people with drum scanners (basically a high resolution laser densitometer that you move across a spinning drum with your film on it) that they got surplussed. Your scanner comes with a free 68K mac running OS7.1, because that's the last thing the software runs on. If your SCSI hard drive crashes and you don't have a backup, better start begging on internet forums. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Windows 95 won't boot with more than ~480 megs of RAM installed so that's realistically your main problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Interesting, I hadn't thought about the legacy hardware approach for SATA. I didn't even know there were SATA cards in 1998, it would be something like another 10 years before I got a SATA drive. But yeah, if you're still running Windows 98 then you have a real good reason for doing it. I managed to get my AHA-2940 and 2940UW cards working OK on WIn10x64 by disabling driver enforcement, so my old weird removable drives still work. Hopefully something like Hamrick Vuescan could get your scanner working under Win10.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:Reason i upgraded from my 2600k is for the new Z270 boards. The ability to use m.2 NVME drives is pretty neat. I get that it's a cool bonus for having a newer platform, and synthetics are through the roof; but I personally wouldn't buy a new system for a faster SSD. Rather use the cash on a new graphics card, I feel like SATA 3 SSDs are still OK (for what I do, at least). HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Windows 95 won't boot with more than ~480 megs of RAM installed so that's realistically your main problem. Nah you can make it boot with that, you have to edit some configuration settings, and it'll then boot with up to 2 GB of usable RAM (with the remaining RAM blocked off. What happens without editing the memory cache settings in system.ini is that the default settings won't work for more than 512 MB of RAM total (including any video card RAM) and when trying to create a memory cache something breaks. Windows 98 is essentially the same way, though it'll play nice with up to 768 MB or so before you need to edit the cache setting lines - you still get the same 2 GB total cap. Paul MaudDib posted:Interesting, I hadn't thought about the legacy hardware approach for SATA. I didn't even know there were SATA cards in 1998, it would be something like another 10 years before I got a SATA drive. But yeah, if you're still running Windows 98 then you have a real good reason for doing it. There weren't any SATA cards in 1998, it came out for consumers in 2003. But when the first SATA chipsets were coming out there were still plenty of Windows 98 users, and so drivers to use SATA became available. It's like how you can get a USB stack for MS-DOS despite the last official release of MS-DOS happening 3 years before mass consumer availability of USB. In fact, the DOSUSB project has USB 3.0 support now! http://www.georgpotthast.de/usb/
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
So what you're saying is... I can boot Win3.1 and use my USB 3.0 hard drive at full speed? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
So was thinking about putting together a PC with a Kaby Lake, and the mobo I was looking at might need a bios update and I don't have a spare skylake cpu. Anything I can do to get around that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Rakeris posted:So was thinking about putting together a PC with a Kaby Lake, and the mobo I was looking at might need a bios update and I don't have a spare skylake cpu. Anything I can do to get around that. Some motherboards can update themselves from a USB stick even if there's no CPU installed, so check if your board is one of those. Asus calls it "USB BIOS Flashback" for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:So what you're saying is... I can boot Win3.1 and use my USB 3.0 hard drive at full speed? Not necessarily the full speed, but you'll be able to at least use the USB 3.0 ports. I have the older, free, version from before USB 3.0 support was added and it did USB 2.0 at more or less full speed on a Pentium III system. You might as well toss Calmira on while you're at it, from http://calmira.de/ It's a replacement shell for Windows 3.x that lets you have Windows 95/98/XP/Vista styled start menu and explorer functionality: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:So what you're saying is... I can boot Win3.1 and use my USB 3.0 hard drive at full speed? Theoretically. I tried to get USB working on my old DOS/WIn3.11 retro box a couple years ago and eventually gave up - and I don't give up easily. Part of the issue that I ran into is that by the time I allocated resources with the autoexec.bat/config.sys for network, sound card, and SCSI card, there wasn't any left for USB. Also, IIRC, it took a ton of low memory for the TSR's to run that monitored the ports which screwed up a bunch of programs, and I couldn't get them to load high. I probably could have gone with the 'custom autoexec/config files just for USB' trick, but I didn't need USB that badly. ....gently caress, that's the most 1993 poo poo I've ever written :/ <edit> judging from Fishmech's post, they've improved the USB stack dramatically, there was no 'package' when I tried it, just a bunch of poo poo I had to manually install. Calmira looks better too, I use an older version of it and it's a little buggy. JnnyThndrs fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
repiv posted:Some motherboards can update themselves from a USB stick even if there's no CPU installed, so check if your board is one of those. Asus calls it "USB BIOS Flashback" for example. Ah nice, didn't realize that, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
In addition to the ASUS usb key flashing (which is very useful, had to update a board to support an i7-6800k) they also have a usb log feature, has anyone used that? I tried when I was having issues with the 6800k but couldn't get it to work. The bios update fixed everything anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
The biggest problem you'll run into with Windows 9x is lack of processor clock speed support. There are many layers of official and unofficial patches you can go through to get stability up to around 2.4Ghz. Out of the box you're looking at a 350Mhz limit and with official patches up to 2.1Ghz. That's just for the OS, there's still software that wasn't expecting clock speeds that fast and will crash on you anyways. There's a whole world of people building new machines to run legacy software on. For drives people have all sorts of solutions, what I've most frequently gone with is compact flash. It's compatible with IDE and systems with IDE drives weren't expecting more than even a few MB/s and often are limited to a 33MB/s bus that never *really* was supposed to be fully saturated so even a 50MB/s CF card ends up exposing never before seen bottlenecks and stability issues from reading data too fast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
While we're having nostalgia-o-clock, who's up for a nice game of Hover!?  Not gonna lie, as a kid I'd make my dad drag out his Windows 95 discs just so I could play that poo poo (plus Fury3, AKA MS-branded Terminal Velocity). I can forgive the improved-and-un-copyrighted graphics, but the lack of official soundeffects is just a tragedy. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
craig588 posted:The biggest problem you'll run into with Windows 9x is lack of processor clock speed support. There are many layers of official and unofficial patches you can go through to get stability up to around 2.4Ghz. Out of the box you're looking at a 350Mhz limit and with official patches up to 2.1Ghz. That's just for the OS, there's still software that wasn't expecting clock speeds that fast and will crash on you anyways. There's a whole world of people building new machines to run legacy software on. For drives people have all sorts of solutions, what I've most frequently gone with is compact flash. It's compatible with IDE and systems with IDE drives weren't expecting more than even a few MB/s and often are limited to a 33MB/s bus that never *really* was supposed to be fully saturated so even a 50MB/s CF card ends up exposing never before seen bottlenecks and stability issues from reading data too fast. I dunno about the rest of people, but I was running Win98SE until 2003 on a Athlon XP 1700+/256MB DDR/nForce2. Zero issues at all and stable as rock. I wonder if Win9x reputation of instability were mostly caused by godawful Socket 7 chipsets and PSUs that were rampant during that time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
.Palladium posted:I dunno about the rest of people, but I was running Win98SE until 2003 on a Athlon XP 1700+/256MB DDR/nForce2. Zero issues at all and stable as rock. Essentially: The faster a Win 9x system runs, the faster you'll run into driver or program problems that wouldn't other wise crop up. If your system is truly stable with stable drivers, you should easily be fine to 3 ghz or whatever. My last windows 98 machine before I finally switched to XP, was a 2 ghz Pentium 4 of some sort, with 1 gig of ram, ran great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
filthychimp posted:I have it working with a 7600k and a ASRock Z270m Pro4 motherboard. The motherboard doesn't have Speedshift enabled by default, so I had to go into the UEFI and enable it manually. Thanks for checking that. I have just updated the BIOS on my Asus Z170i, but it seems they haven't added the option in the BIOS to enable it. Fuckers? Throttlestop can enable it though, for what it's worth. GRINDCORE MEGGIDO fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 13:10
|
|
.
|
Palladium posted:I dunno about the rest of people, but I was running Win98SE until 2003 on a Athlon XP 1700+/256MB DDR/nForce2. Zero issues at all and stable as rock. Same. As in exactly the same CPU and chipset. I doubt there is any truth to that 350mhz barrier because around the turn of the century your average new PC would be running a 500mhz+ Pentium 3 with Windows 98 SE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
I can't find a live version of the KB article now, but on Google you'll find a lot of dead links to the 350MHz patch Microsoft released. Here's the article about the 2.1GHz limit https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/312108/windows-protection-error-in-ndis-with-a-cpu-that-is-faster-than-2.1-ghz
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Reads like an 32bit integer thing that gets hosed by clamping. Like a clock higher than 2.1GHz flips the signed bit, turning it into a negative signed integer, elsewhere it gets clamped to 0- (2^31)-1, turning it into a zero and loving up some division. Not entirely sure why NDIS needs to know the CPU clock and do math with it, tho.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
The specific 350 MHz thing sounds like it might be either a problem with certain driver/hardware combinations that can't handle high speeds, or a problem with only the original version of Windows 95, like the ones before any OSR releases. It could also be a bad interaction on certain motherboards with the bus speeds needed for those fast CPU. Intel didn't release any 350 MHz or faster x86 chips until the 350 and 400 MHz Deschutes Pentium II models in April 1998, at which point nearly all of the Windows 95 computers being sold would be either OSR2 or OSR2.5 level revisions. Windows 98 would come out in May 1998.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
I'm going to buy a new mobo+cpu+ram to upgrade from my second gen i5 2400 and would like to know if waiting a couple of months for the release of zen would be wise instead of just getting a skylake/kaby lake right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
If you can wait, I would, at least to see what the market will be like. Zen has some high expectations. That said, going Intel now isn't going to somehow be a horrible option, and we've seen AMD hype go poorly several times in the past...
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
At best Ryzen is going to be competitive with current Intel offerings but anyone who's expecting AMD to take the performance crown is delusional. Buying Intel now if you need a new chip is a good choice. Anyone who is holding off for March is just hoping it will be on par and maybe a little cheaper than a comparable Intel offering so they can throw AMD a bone for the first time in six+ years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:I'm going to buy a new mobo+cpu+ram to upgrade from my second gen i5 2400 and would like to know if waiting a couple of months for the release of zen would be wise instead of just getting a skylake/kaby lake right now. If you're looking at getting a Kaby Lake CPU, there's not much reason to wait. If you want more than 4 cores, Zen could possibly be worth the wait because you might have a shot at getting a 6900K competitor for ~$650-ish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
What's the motherboard chipset market for AMD CPUs compared to Intel? Are they on parity, or do Intel chipsets tend to do better?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Intel needs to keep AMD afloat, to keep antitrust off their back. I'd figure it's in their interest to give AMD a small win for a while to rejoice over, and when it's time again, they'll slap them silly with a six core desktop -K CPU in the price range of current -K top-end quad (isn't Coffee Lake supposed to bring that, anyway?), and lower the price of the 8-core HEDT closer towards the 8C Ryzen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Intel needs to keep AMD afloat, to keep antitrust off their back. I'd figure it's in their interest to give AMD a small win for a while to rejoice over, and when it's time again, they'll slap them silly with a six core desktop -K CPU in the price range of current -K top-end quad (isn't Coffee Lake supposed to bring that, anyway?), and lower the price of the 8-core HEDT closer towards the 8C Ryzen. I dislike this line of reasoning. If your competitor goes under not because of your sinister works because of their own incompetence then how is it antitrust?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:I dislike this line of reasoning. If your competitor goes under not because of your sinister works because of their own incompetence then how is it antitrust? It isn’t in and of itself antitrust, but it makes Intel more vulnerable to antitrust suits in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Would Intel really be subject to anti-trust in a single-x86-manufacturer world? x86 isn't absurdly dominant in computing anymore, even from a consumer standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Would Intel really be subject to anti-trust in a single-x86-manufacturer world? x86 isn't absurdly dominant in computing anymore, even from a consumer standpoint. It’s absurdly dominant in business.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Mainframes are not x86 and are at the heart of most financial transactions in the world. ARM is dominant in mobile and general purpose embedded devices with MIPS primarily being used by old printers. However, most of the growing market segments in servers are x86, so that's where investments will continue until saturation is demonstrated / market has matured.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It isn’t in and of itself antitrust, but it makes Intel more vulnerable to antitrust suits in the future. Not really. AMD's already so minuscule that Intel's as open to antitrust suits as they'd be if AMD actually disappeared. Just like how Microsoft got in an antitrust suit while Macs and various other minor computer systems were still like 10% of the market for home computer OSes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Would Intel really be subject to anti-trust in a single-x86-manufacturer world? x86 isn't absurdly dominant in computing anymore, even from a consumer standpoint. It goes from "gently caress you, pay me (because my server chips are 40% faster and 50% more power efficient), to "gently caress you, pay me (because I'm the only x86 game in town). The price points can both be exactly the same for the exact same chip, but if the regulators think Intel is loving the market over using it's monopoly powers, and Intel doesn't have downy AMD to point to, it could lead to more anti-trust scrutiny. It'll never be 'AMD went under, time to break up Pa-Intel just like we broke up Ma-Bell', but Intel could see some more regulatory annoyances because of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Maybe at some other point in regulatory history Intel might have had some cause for worry about issues if AMD folded. With the current administration's declared intent to go hands-off, pro-big-business, though, I cannot fathom them turning a baleful eye at much of anyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
The EU already sued Intel for a paltry rear end 1 bil eurobucks Intel has nothing to fear
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Anyone keeping track of this fun clock issue that's making the rounds? Apparently Atom C2xxx series processors have a known fault where they will fail hard after ~18month. I have a DS1515+ thats 17 months old, too. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Walked posted:Anyone keeping track of this fun clock issue that's making the rounds? Do you have any details? This is a pretty big deal if so, even though those CPUs themselves were super cheap they were integrated into some pretty drat expensive complete systems. I was thinking about a Denverton 8 core NAS whenever those roll around, but this is pretty alarming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 16:34
|
|