>>12589162Yes there are threads for DOS/9x/XP-era gaming every now and then
no this board is purely for retro games
>>12589162Yeah I love oblivion and crysis.
>>12589162Sure, but unless there's a Unity port, these kids don't know anything about the scene in general.
>>12589162No, what the fuck do you think this is, a retro gaming board?
someone here put together a windows 95 virtualbox pack with a bunch of games installed
I love my Pentium 3 1GHz with Nvidia Geforce 3 and Aureal Vortex 2.
>>12589162>windows 2000>gaming
>>12589162any games 20+ years ago
>>12589162sure
>>12589162Yes retro PC games like Crysis which were released before December 2007 are allowed here
>>12589179>>12589282The tactic of shitting in your own soup in order to protest the menu is a fascinating thing.
>>12589162There's literally 0 point of playing on a "retro PC". You would just make your experience somewhat bad since a lot of games needed patches or straight up modern ports to be playable. You can run nearly if not everything with wrappers, wine, layers and stuff. >But Windows 9xYou can just use modern Windows or Linux with a 9x theme. >But DOSDosbox-x os Staging
>>12589323There's no "point" in playing anything.
>>12589162>Win2k>gamesYou want to talk about solitaire and minesweeper? Go ahead.
>>12589162This board allows more modern PC games than console games according to the rules
>>12589162How do I run Win 9x nowadays? I tried VMWare and couldn't run SimCity 3000. I don't think my CPU can run 86box.
post you're rigscompact but fully featured
>>12589402on ryzen 5 5600x I can do Pentium II 266Mhz at full speed in PCem, never used 86box
>>12589323Hardware vs emulation baiting works better in console threads.
>>12589406I doubt my Ivy Bridge can take it.
>>12589382Windows 2000 is quite capable for gaming and was in fact a popular alternative to Windows XP for some time due to its much smaller overhead. It did have some compatibility issues, of course, particularly with the really old games, but it's disingenuous to suggest it wasn't viable at all.
>>12589402>>12589423Yeah, on hardware that old your best bet really is running the games natively with wrappers and whatever other fixes and workarounds are documented on the PC Gaming Wiki. Standard VM software like VMWare and the like are hit and miss, especially since they don't do 3D acceleration for Win9x. There IS a solution known as QEMU-3dfx that purports to have close to perfect compatibility AND near-native performance, but it's extremely difficult to set up without reading guides out the ass, and it still requires the use of wrappers anyway.
>>12589541Win2000 was loved because of how stable it was compared to 9x including 98SE, while effectively being Win98 inside of WinNT, including DirectX 7-9c support. Before XP, it was the best version of Windows you could use.
Given PC gaming's long associations with a mix of 1) doing whatever it takes to make that fancy new game run on hardware that it shouldn't and 2) running that old fav on much newer hardware to get those high framerates and/or resolutions there is significantly less attachment to period accurate hardware than you see within the more rigid console space. Of course there are those that do really want to play doom on a 486 like they did back in the day but even among that sort of crowd you will often see deviances in the form of things like floppy emulators (blue scsi yo) and compact flash cards being used in the place of hard drives to avoid some of the downsides these very old devices have.This combined with the extreme backwards compatibility modern windows employs and software solutions for times it falls short leads to retro pc gaming more of being a label to describe the games rather than any real description of the hardware they might be running on. When you can get shit like DOS running bare metal on a haswell i7 or people getting windows 98 to work with a ryzen cpu where really is the line in the sand?After all, if pic related works on a modern system through a simple patch someone made is it suddenly no longer retro?
Friendly heads up that 86box has updated to 5.3, and now has a built-in machine manager like PCem has so running multiple different machines doesn't need a front-end anymore. A preview version of 6.0 was just released 5 days ago, the big enhancement coming is a virtual network switch that allows you to connect up the emulated 86box machines together, so playing old games multiplayer might be a possibility again one day.
>>12589586One feature they also added that they didn't advertise is support for the Nuked SC-55 CLAP plugin, probably because they don't think it's completely ready, but I can confirm it works. Not that it was completely needed, as FluidSynth plus a good .sf2 soundfont usually works, and you could always use the regular Nuked SC-55 with it, but it's still neat. I will be sure to include it in my upcoming pack.
>>12589231>>12589382I don't think you know what Win2k isIt's Windows NT, just like XP, except without the additional XP bloatHere's the back of The Orange Box (2007), which lists 2000 as one of the supported OSes
>>12589603>here's one exampleZoomer, I lived late 90s-early 2000s pc gaming. Almost every game out there would bounce back a "not compatible with Windows NT" error if you tried to run in on 2000. It was common sense that it was a bad OS for gaming because it was for office work and servers. You were considered to be fucking retarded if you even tried. Repent.
>>12589608Keep making shit up while I post more evidence that shows you're wrong
>>12589608
>drivers on 2000revert to 98 or wait for XP, nobody gamed on 2000
>>12589330This actually looks scary. Amazing how low resolution and slow framerate can make something into a horror game.
>>12589629Please continue embarrassing yourself
>>12589162yes WinXP gaming is 2007 retros.but the consolefags hate it.
>>12589614>>12589603most devs didn't bother with WinNT/2000 compatibility though. WinNT was basically for server machines and work clients.
>>12589639>box explicitly and specifically lists 2000 as a supported OS>"uhhhh even though the box says it's supported, it's not because I said so"
I was gonna have a XP machine for my collection of old games, but it was a bitch to set things up right and I went over my budget. I'll have to stick with 7. But just out of curiosity, what's the best way to set up XP nowadays? Any opinions on Integral or SP4?
>>12589631>slow framerate can make something into a horror game.DOOM can already do 60fps on Pentium 2 machines IIRC.
>>12589557>Before XP, it was the best version of Windows you could use.i used Win2000 for school. and i always hated how bloated XP was compared to 2000. and then they added more bloat in Win7!!!
>>12589323>Stagingshit bloated with shit CRT meme filters.DosBox 0.74 or 0.73 is just fine.
>>12589608Could reach the thread image limit with these so I'll take a break for now, but I'll post more later if I have nothing better to do
>>12589614>>12589618>>12589623>>12589630>>12589641>>12589645>>12589651>>12589662>>12589678>>12589684>posts a bunch of shovelware to prove some anon wronglmao what a deranged loser
>>12589687>Warcraft 3, San Andreas, Age of Mythology, etyc>shovelware
>>12589684These are all games released years after the fact. They work on XP which was NT as well so it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to get it to work on 2000. While 2000 was the newest OS it didn't run many games - it wasn't meant to. Your disingenuity is kinda pathetic, desu.
>>12589634now install it and tell us your experiencewe'll wait for you
Chiming in with my copy of nolf goty that recommends windows 98 and 2000.
>>12589648Wrong again, tripfag.
>>12589692I accept your concession.
>>12589162Windows 2000 was what I used when I played a lot of MAME. I skipped 98+ME in their day, going straight to 2000. I hope to rebuild my 2000 machine here to be the "referee" host machine for dueling J-Win98SE machines, for all those great games we used to play in those days.
Guess it's as good a thread as any for this. I'm just about ready to release the next version of my Windows 98 pack. At the moment these are the games that are installed, all fully playable (as far as I've been able to ascertain) without needing to download or set anything up.That said, one criticism that has been levied in the past is the lack of 3D accelerated games, and that is indeed fair. With the exception of Monster Truck Madness, there's basically none. I have tested games like GLQuake and Croc, and they work perfectly, but the problem is they rely on Redbook audio for music, though they play completely fine without it. Should I install them and other similar games and provide a separate downloadable pack with the required images? And for that matter, should I do the same for games that require the CD and have no crack available? There's a good few I'd love to include, but I cannot seem to source a no-CD crack for them.
>>12589162the sticky includes "computer games", but i'm not certain how the line is defined.the sticky says "platforms launched in 2001 or earlier", and "games for those platforms no later than 2007". so presumably that would mean pc games up to 2007 that can reasonably be expected to run on a top end 2001 machine would be allowed, though for a particular game that could be hard to test, since few people have a top end 2001 pc to try it on. i suppose one objective measurement is games whose minimum requirements mentions hardware that is from 2001 or older, though that might not be perfect since in many cases there will be games that can run ok on a 2001 machine despite specifying slightly newer hardware.allowing all pc games up to 2007 probably isn't intended, since that'd include clearly 7th gen tier games which aren't allowed
>>12589634I'm 38, never heard of anyone using win2000 honestly. We used 95, then 98, then xp, then some fell into the vista-trap, others waited and then moved to win7
>>12589923looked around for the most extreme example for the lulz.here's Portal (2007) running on a geforce 3 ti-500 (2001)https://youtu.be/mtmuq_bPMRYportal is retro
>>12589931that's because 2000 was never intended as a consumer OS, only certain types of home users "in the know" would have considered it, in the know as in those who knew it was way more stable than win9x, and didn't care too much about video game support (at least earlier on, once games started supporting XP explicitly they tended to work fine in 2k as well)
>>12589923The highest-end PC you could've possibly put together by December 2001 would've sported an Athlon XP 1900+ with either a GeForce 3 Ti 500 or a Radeon 8500. Such a rig would've pretty much capped out at the best of 2004 (the AAA trio of Half Life 2, Far Cry, and Doom 3), plus whatever else came out after that used their engines. Oblivion and Crysis most certainly are out by this criterion.
>>12589941yea, once you get into "7th gen engines" like say UE3 you probably can't run them at all as the gf3 is a dx8 card, probably the best exception is source engine games since the source engine supported older d3d versions for a long time and was very configurableAAA 2004 games aren't really in question since many of them like doom3 and half-life2 were already available on 6th gen consoles as well
>>12589941>Oblivionthat reminds me of the Oldblivion mod, which i heard about when looking for games to run on my eeepc 701oldblivion allows oblivion to run on pre-d3d9 cards so perhaps technically it could be allowed. it's really, really pushing it thoughhttps://youtu.be/74BgudfmgQE
>>12589941PC needs a hard capped year to avoid shitpost discussions about how a game runs on 2001 hardware or not
>>12589972most pc games up to 2007 can be run anyway so it barely matters
>>12589919I have no opinion on your question but I am here to give you a thumbs up for your efforts.
>>12589919what if the games and virtual machine were made available separately via torrent? the games and dependencies (e.g. Redbook audio) could then be on the games torrent. this would allow unlimited amount of games and packages so it would please everyone. others could contribute their packages, too. the problem is curating and managing it though
Anyone here with old laptops (like from 1994-1996)? Do their PCMCIA-slots support modern CF-cards (I mean new stuff manufactured recently, not CFs from the early 00s) and modern CF-adapters? Finding a cheap DOS-friendly PCMCIA-SCSI CD-ROM is impossible nowadays.
>>12590206i have previously owned a 1994 laptop but not on me, nor have i ever owned a modern CF card.that said, CF cards i believe are just IDE devices, so a PCMCIA CF adapter should have the same limitations as any other IDE controller. i can't think of any obvious reason why any CF card wouldn't work in an old pcmcia adapter, though older OS's won't be able to access addresses past 137GB (128GiB) due to the lack of 48-bit LBA support (nor with old BIOS's be able to boot OS's located beyond that limit)that said, there's really no use for so much space on a mid-90's laptop, so being limited to that shouldn't be a problem
>>12589415>baitExplain to me how is old hardware better. Or playing games on old hardware. OS and programs' aesthetic/look and the games themselves were what made the experience soulful, not the crashes, bluescreeens, low fps, long boot time and dealing with drivers.>>12589643Yes but only with custom ports.
>>12589231>windows 2000>gamingWindows 2000 was great I used it for most of the 2000's. It was so much more stable than 95 and 98 and lacked all the bloat and teething problems of XP which I didn't start using until SP3.
retro pcs were fun for a while but scalpers have killed the hobby, I'm just selling off all my shit now and making insane money from retards
>>12590180The issue is many (if not most) Windows games are not portable and require installation to run anyway unless they're modified in some way, usually because they're set up to look in either a INI file in the Windows folder (typical of Win3.x games) or in the registry (for Win9x and up) for things like install directory or even CD path. This is how I was able to get some games that are supposed to require the CD to run without it, by copying the necessary files from the disc to the game folder, then editing either an INI file or a registry entry to look in the game folder instead. So if I'm having to install them, I may as well do so in the machine itself and so reduce complexity, plus it allows me to set up desktop shortcuts for easy access. I may be missing something here, though, so I'm all ears for ideas.This isn't as much of a problem for DOS games, though, and I am also curating a pack for that, so maybe there that could work?
>>12590482It doesn't help that pc parts have all kinds of parts that will fucking die because the wild west meant companies would use components that will fail just to undercut each other in the race to the bottom. There are plenty of shit pc parts today for sure but overall things are considerably more reliable.Then you get shit like dallas clock chips and that small, but impactful period of the capacitor plague meaning unless you do have the gear and skill to do repairs a lot of old computers will be DOA or failing. Comparatively consoles from similar time periods have held up much better to the ravages of time.
>>12589289I actually do love those games though.
>>12589687yes you definitely are
>>12589919>Should I install them and other similar games and provide a separate downloadable pack with the required images? And for that matter, should I do the same for games that require the CD and have no crack available?They should probably be separate if they don't work out of the box.
>>12589959Same framerate as arena.
>>12589231A friend gave me an old K6-2 with Windows 2000 in 2006 and it worked fine for all the games I played :Throne of Darkness, Half-Life, Quake 3, Kohan, Age of Empire 2, GBA and SNES emulators...
>>12590641it's a bit better without fraps recording it as seen in the comments. it's certainly not the best way to play it but people have beaten games with worse
>>12590668video description, i mean
>people still shitting up the thread with this argument over OS'sFor gods sake, both of you niggers are correct. Win2000 was a hot OS for hardcore tweakers who were obsessed with performance since it was more lightweight than XP, AND it wasn't a great OS for videogames until around 2004-2005 or so when it started gaining widespread support from devs around the same time devs were moving away from Win98SE to XP.
>>12590673NO! I HAVE TO BE THE ONE THAT'S RIGHT! :^(
Recently I acquired some more 486 boards for some of the cases I have lying around.
>>12590770>inset ram>SNAP
>>12590770one of the best boards
>>12589162It is, but it might as well not be.PC gaming didn't get good until the 2010s.
>PC gaming got good when real PC games ceased to exist and it became a dumping ground for console garbageok
>>12590842Yes, faggot. That's coincidentally also when PC gaming really became profitable.
>>12590814Hmm, let me think.I enjoyed Darklands in 1992 or 1993I enjoyed Porsche need for speed in 2000Planescape torment. That was a good one. 1999 I think.Heroes of might and magic 3. Absolute classic . 1999 again right?Deus ex? 2000? That was greatCome to think of it you might be completely wrong about everything.
>>12590301>the crashes, bluescreens, low fps, long boot time and dealing with driversThis. I think people either never experienced or have weird nostalgia for that stuff and willfully ignore all those frustrations. People forget how common it was for a game to crash a whole system. Personally, I was a Mac guy: you couldn’t pay me to go back to using System 6/7/8, they were so unstable. Virtualization on modern hardware is hands down the better choice.
>>12589687damn has the quality of bait truly fallen this much?
>>12589910that's some nice stuff
>>12590781It's a great one for modding to "perfection".
Just like the other true gaymers I also avoided Windows NT/2000 like a plague. It's obvious that OS was for server.>Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinME, WinXP, Win7
>>12590639I may just do that. Only issue is I'm totally out of desktop space now lol so I think I'm going to have to group shortcuts into folders to make room for more.
>>12589390>modern PC gamessuch as?if a game supports direct x 9 it's old in my bookyou might not like it but it's just how it is
>>12589641i said most. lear to read, angry b8er.>>12590301Win98SE and Win2000 were the most stable Faildows ever. not including any funny driver issues ,especially with sound cards.
>>12589910specs on the chunky red GPU?
>>12589869i am right and i was there.
>>12589323>There's literally 0 point of playing on a "retro PC".You don't need a "retro PC", all you need is a PC CRT monitor for that authentic experience.
>>12589919There are some gems in there for sure, but this is really heavy on the "Windows Entertainment Pack" type games. It feels like it's a compilation of that plus the Maxis box set you could buy that had like five Sim-series games along with Widget Workshop. I would maybe put all of the WEP games under one shortcut to a launcher and then include more independent games. Definitely more 3D stuff. Try Ignition for example>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_(video_game)
>>12589931Yeah, it wasn't what most people had at home or at school, but it was really the best you could get at the time. When I started to collect yard sale PCs, a little later, when XP came out and people were throwing away their old beige towers in droves, only the high end machines assembled by custom PC shops ever had Windows 2000 installed. The prebuilt Dells and Gateways inevitably had the version of windows 98 that crashed all the time.
>>12589162heh just got into old laptops its also way cheaper than retro consoles since normies are too dumb to use old pcs>>12589323>You can run nearly if not everything with wrappers, wine, layers and stuff.I used to think like that but got sick of doing a shit ton of tinkering now I bought some old pcs I just boot up and play,
>>12591653That's the least important thing for a retro PC.You don't get "CRT" effects like scanlines etc. with VGA in the first place.
>>12591267Windows XP and Windows 7 are Windows NT. They are formally designated NT 5.1 and NT 6.1 respectively. Windows 2000 is NT 5.0.XP is basically just 2000 with some "chrome" on it and a built in wi-fi manager (which you can also install on Windows 2000 just fine, if you need it). You can almost always run software designed for XP on Windows 2000 even if it's not officially supported, and it should be mentioned that in modern times you can often run software designed for much later versions of windows, including relatively modern software like some web browsers, with DLLs that have been developed to give the OS more forward compatibility.
>>12591663Drat, I installed this to try it out but it seems the Glide patch doesn't work with the Banshee I'm using for the machine (it locks up the entire thing). Still, it works pretty well at 640x480 even with software rendering, so I may add it anyway.
>>12591728I believe that game has Glide and DirectDraw modes you can choose between. Maybe it's a separate executable. But also maybe that was a bad example of something to include in your set because I think I ended up with it specifically because it's a good game for VooDoo cards and that's what I had in my showpiece Windows 98 machine. So maybe not the best if that's not what you're emulating.
>>12591740Yeah, the patch installs a separate executable that enables Glide, but it looks like it was only meant for Voodoo 1 and 2. Regardless, it's pretty good, and it works without the CD, though then there's no music.Anyway, looks like I will indeed have to move a bunch of the smaller Windows 3.x WEP-style games onto a folder or something to make room for bigger, more complex games. The work never ends for me, it seems.
>>12591679>normies are too dumb to use old pcswhich is retarded since they're easier to service when you think about it
>>12591758Normalfags don't want to service anything, period, regardless of how easy or hard it is to do so.
The ultimate Doom cpu
I got this one in 1995 but with a different screen. Big Crts, especially the good ones, were Very expensive.
>>12589651Found a sealed copy of this at goodwill for like 5 bucks. Love this game so I had to grab it. I don’t even know what the difference is other than it has one of the expansions on it?
>>12589919Pretty cool that ur doing that but wtf is “Mordor”? I’m familiar w most everything on there except that. Is it a LotR game? Or something original?
>>12591935https://www.myabandonware.com/game/mordor-the-depths-of-dejenol-dvmtl;dr it's a Roguelike.
>>12591832>2999Ngermany used Nugget dollars?
>>12591758>easierno. definitely not. e.g. my Pentium 2 rig is still sitting around and derusting it would be hell. and replacing everything rusted would be expensive as heck, mostly due to time and shipping costs. it's also not fast and never built for gaming so even if it was peak condition, i would still need to replace shit that's expensive to ship around here, and impossible to source locally.if you have unlimited time and money, go ahead. make youself feel real unretarded.
>>12592271sounds more like a you problem than a PC problem.
>>12591947Word
>>12589162>2000>retronewfag
>>12591495>>12591679I often watch this Dosgamert guy and half of Win98SE and before games don't even launch without some kind of patch from patches scrolls. Some even takes down the whole OS with a bluescreen.
>>12589608Nice LARP, you fucking loser. Windows 2000's game compatibility is the same as XP's until you get into the real late-era XP stuff that came out long after Windows 7 (and 8 in some cases). If you're trying to run old games designed for Win 9x on any NT-based Windows and are surprised by compatibility issues, you're a fucking retard.>>12590673>it wasn't a great OS for videogames until around 2004-2005You're a retarded faggot too. Windows 2000 supported DirectX 9, just like XP. Any game designed for XP from its launch onwards ran on 2000 as well. They were practically the same OS under the hood. Game developers didn't START supporting Windows 2000 in the middle of the fucking decade when it was already 5 years old. That makes no fucking sense, you cretin. If anything it was the opposite as 2000 gradually started having issues with newer games towards the back end of the decade because they were built with XP SP2/3 in mind (and didn't work on older versions of XP either).
>>12592385MS put more work into making XP backwards compatible with win9x software than they did 2000 due to it targeting home users.
>>12589231It was as well suited for gaming as XP was. My hard drive was so tiny back then I had to save space.
>>12589919>And for that matter, should I do the same for games that require the CD and have no crack available?Which ones? Torrminatorr has some ancient scene releases which come precracked, tried looking into their scene collections?
How important is a 32-bit cpu for windows xp?I've been thinking of finding a half decent windows vista/7 era laptop and downgrading it to xp, but idk if a 64-bit cpu will prevent me from running 16-bit programs even if the OS is 32-bit.
>>12592473no only 64-bit XP lost compatibility with 16-bit programs
>>12589919>I cannot seem to source a no-CD crack for themgamecopyworld is still around, have you looked there?
>>12592478nta but isn't the main reason behind that due to a lot of 16bit software wanting DMA whereas in a 64bit world (due to y'know all the changes to coding practices and layers of separation from the physical hardware) where the physical memory blocks are doesn't matter as its all addressed in am ore virtual way? idk it isn't my area of knowledge.
