Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:35:40 +0200
From:      Dick Hoogendijk <dick@nagual.st>
To:        freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: need some advice
Message-ID:  <20050729083540.GA66756@lothlorien.nagual.st>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.61b.0507281559190.110296@dante68.u.washington.edu>
References:  <20050729002602.65ff60bb.dick@nagual.st> <Pine.A41.4.61b.0507281559190.110296@dante68.u.washington.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 Jul Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, dick hoogendijk wrote:
> >My options are:
> >
> >Athlon64-3000+ (Newcastle) on a MSI K8T NEO-FSR board (1Gb 3200 mem)
> >Athlon64-3400+ (Clawhammer on the same board
> >Intel Prescott 3.4Mhz on a Intel 915p board (1024 Mb DDRII pc4300
> >memory)
> >I will run FreebSD on it (compile a lot of ports) and (windows-xp/98se)
> >for gaming.
> >Any advice is welcome.

> Wha?!?! Win98?!?! are you insane?

No, of course I'm not ;-)
Win98se runs perfectly well on new machines and the fact is that a lot
of games that I like very much *don't* run on XP. Period.
The older command&conquer series i.e. and lots of point&click adventures
that my wife is font of.

Of course, the newer games do run on XP, but most of them also run very
smooth (even smoother) on W98.

Windows just for gaming to me means w98se. It's faster, smoother and
smaller.

I'll bring it up to modern standards though by installing the unofficial
SP2 for windows98se. This gives hundreds of changes under the hood. It's
programmed by very well skilled programmers (a bit like the ones of
tweakui, which is not bad either). W98se systems w/ SP2 are very stable
and have the looks of windows2000. Not bad at all for a couple of years
more.

I agree, if you want more (other) things like audio/movie etc.. go for
windows2000 or XP. That's why I have all three of them. FreeBSD (to me
is my main system); w98 is the gaming engine; XP is for multimedia which
is still a bit difficult in the *nix world.

> The only thing I could see justifying that would be playing PSX games
> with bleem (since it was only supported on 98), and that's it.

Doing that, that is what I'd call slow. With today's prices you should
play PSX games on a psx1 (modified).
Not

> only that, 98 wasn't built with today's hardware, so all in all it
> will be EXCEPTIONALLY slow performance wise. Heh. I remember running
> win98 on a faster P3 and the fact that it was so horribly slow.

Finding support for modern hardware is sometimes a little difficult,
but up to now I always managed to find the right drivers. I always use
kind of standard hardware (like nvidia, creativ, etc). Up and running I
ghost the machine and all games run fast and smooth. Like I said
earlier, smoother than under XP.

-- 
dick -- http://nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE
++ Running FreeBSD 4.11-stable ++ FreeBSD 5.4
+ Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilja



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050729083540.GA66756>