Because I don't want to use a processor that's vulnerable to every piece of malware and virus released in the last 10,years.
>>51989148
Because 7 > 4
>>51989148
I am, actually.
In my hometown I have a computer running lubuntu on a pentium 4 and 1GB or ram.
Netburst is the only reason AMD was ever good. Simply because they couldn't do worse than Intel in that regard.
>>51989173
>>51989196
GTFO AMDfags.
Because i have a pentium 5
i use this computer for gaming, thats why.
>>51989148
Because I'm using my AMD FX-4350...
Kill me now
>>51989148
I had one of those dual core pentiums, that shit was awful.
>>51989148
I am in my mamebox.
>>51989148
Why aren't you using a PowerPC G4?
>>51989148
i do. it is my desktop computer.
>>51989604
How are you going to get out of it?
>>51989697
I just have to try and make it through the fan. It slows down when nothing is happening.
>>51989175
What's a "Pentium 7"??
>>51989148
Why do you only have one socket /g/?
>2015
>not using Sparc M7 master race
Plebs!
>>51989173
>all malware from the past decade targeting a specific type of CPUs mostly 10+ years old
Please elaborate.
>>51989148
Because my xeon can rape the shit out of any preshott.
>>51989818
>preshott
Who says P4 implies Prescott? Northwoods weren't half bad you know, and at least for socket 478 you can get Northwoods clocked as high as Prescotts (i.e. up to 3.4Ghz), albeit running much cooler, having better OC potential due to the above, and performing better for many tasks anyway.
>>51989901
Because LGA 775 Netburst chips were all Prescott, and they were the only ones who had access to DDR2 and PCI-E
Just die already, you cancerous weeb.
>>51989940
What prevents you from staying with S478 (populated with a comfy Northwood) + DDR1@400MHz (possibly higher if FSB-OCed along with CPU) + AGP?
>>51989999
Way too slow and limited for my purposes. Literally any other chip is better than one based off P4. Even Bulldozer.
Also, pretty much every motherboard made back then was infested in some way or another with the capacitor plague, and P4's heat output made it even worse.
>>51989148
mainly because it's not 2001 anymore.
I am so fucking sick of seeing Pentium 4 threads
"Hey guise I just sfound my pentium 4 in my closet and I think it's great btw should I use it BLA BLA" threads. Every time, EVERY fucking time, all day long, without end.
NO.
FUCK OFF.
I DON'T CARE.
I DON'T CARE IF YOU LIKED IT, HATED IT, THOUGHT IT WAS WEIRD, STUPID, RAGEWORTHY, MINDFUCKING, BOTNET OR WHATEVER. I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK.
AND I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE. AT ALL.
"Just installed a pentium 4 in my pc, I'm a faggot, rape my face" JESUS FUCKING CHRIST STOP MAKING THESE THREADS ALREADY. IT IS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE THAT THERE IS SOME FAGGOT WHO HEARD OF THIS SHIT FOR THE FIRST TIME _EVERY FUCKING DAY_ AND NEEDS TO GIVE HIS RETARDED OPINION ON IT.
STOP FUCKING MAKING THESE THREADS. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHAT SOME ANONYMOUS BITCHFACE THINKS ABOUT THIS SHITTY CPU EVERY FUCKING DAY.
EVERY DAY THESE FUCKING THREADS "I iuse a P4, I have a heater , BLA BLA BLA"
NO.
SHUT THE FUCK UP. STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS SHIT. NOBODY CARES.
>>51989963
I... I want this room.
Is this some bot making all these shitty threads?
https://rbt.asia/g/?task=search2&search_media_hash=au%2Bydwr%2Btfi1ddx2lwVrFg%3D%3D
>>51990047
I feel you anon. Feel the same about qBitorrent threads.
>>51990131
And I literally have nothing to do at this point, so I am entertaining myself by humoring him.
>>51989148
because i'm not poor and do more than facebook & 4chan on my computer.
>>51990047
>literally this mad
Pls cry moar.
>>51990041
>pretty much every motherboard made back then was infested in some way or another with the capacitor plague
I beg to differ. Some of the better ASUS boards (like the P4C800 series for example) tend to work flawlessly to this day with not a single cap ever swapped out, and none really requiring it given just how flat their tops still are.
>>51989148
I want to use mine as a hot plate. Fan failed and heatsink was hot enough to fry an egg after just 3-4 minutes idle.
>>51990144
for real though, RDRAM-based northwood shitboxes aren't too bad really, never seen cap issues on any S478 board I've owned either
>>51990047
Given that the P4 premiered after 1999, it's not retro stuff, so yea, deal with it I guess.
>>51990206
>>51990182
>Pls cry moar.
Why are you replying to copypasta
> Some of the better ASUS boards (like the P4C800 series for example) tend to work flawlessly to this day with not a single cap ever swapped out
lel
http://badcaps.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11694
because i upgraded to pentium D
>>51990047
sounds like somebody's mad that anons aren't sucking him off every time he makes a facebook machine meme thread :^)
embrace the housefire before the housefire embraces you
>>51990234
are you ok? you sond confused
>>51990194
It even lasted that long before a thermal condition shutdown?
>tfw "select all images with eggs" captcha, all of them fried
>>51989999
Ok quaderino
>>51990182
Ok, i will grant you that after re-capping, most P4 boards ran OK.
OEM boards were messy though. In my high school computer scrap room used for the Computer Tech classes, all of the dell and HP boxes, especially the P4 ones, had at least 3 or more swollen caps. I knew that one for a fact because after school I often helped the teacher re-build the damn things after the mongoloids got their hands on them.
>>51990203
RDRAM was a huge mistake w/ P4. "Here, lets take a latency sensitive architecture and couple it with a memory tech that is shitty when it comes to its latency due to its design."
>>51990261
P4s thermal throttle via adding idle cycles to stay below the thermal limit. If there's one thing they have going for them, its very difficult to get one to shut down through overheat.
>>51990221
Well I've got such a board around which still receives a fair share of use as a server, and it's perfectly fine and so are the caps.
>>51989148
The pipe is too long.
>>51989963
Why are you so jealous anon?
>>51989148
are you even running rdram on it, or just torture it with shitty ddr?
>>51990261
I was in the BIOS changing settings and could smell burning so quickly turned it off. Took 30 minutes to cool off before I could touch it. Haven't turned it on again since but it's probably fine, just need to ghetto up a fan as I can't fit the spare because of capacitors being packed too close to the slot.
>>51990308
>RDRAM was a huge mistake w/ P4
Yeah, I thought that too, but after my experience using a shit ton of P4s for modern use cases, RDRAM just blows DDR shit out of the water. They feel way snappier.
>>51990082
What's wrong with qBittorrent (or, for that matter, threads about it)? Easily beats both botnet uTorrent and unstable Deluge.
>>51989750
Let me introduce you to the glorious i7.
>>51989148
THIRTY
ONE
CYCLE
BRANCH
MISS
>>51990395
Obviously the motherboard must support such memory, and the chipset used may have an impact too. Any in particular you have had decent results with?
>>51990466
>dat logick
So a P4 is necessarily better than an i3, because (4 > 3)?
>>51989963
I kinda doubt he's using P4s. Given that, why, of all things, post this here?
>>51990468
Is that real? How could they even fuck it up that badly?
Oh wait, intel did not aim for top performance when they designed the CPU. They aimed for maximum gigahurtz and ripping off uninformed consumers.
>>51990395
Its mainly because RDRAM was running at much higher clock speeds. RDRAM ran at twice the base clock speed as it was not double data rate to achieve its bandwidth.
At least as I understand it. There are likely other factors responsible as well.
>Pentium 4
Wow, yeah, a processor that per-clock is slower than anything except maybe an 8088 and has a power TDP of 1.5KW. It's like your a fucking shitposter or something, OP.
>>51990308
>>51990395
>>51990554
Intel only tried to spread RDRAM usage because they own patents for it.
>>51990466
>you had i7 CPUs 7 fucking years ago
>you still have i7 CPUs around, with no end in sight
Oh, Intel, how innovative have you become.
>>51990570
Yet somehow it was the P4 era when the sweetspot was reached of having PC which kept being much usable for any more or less basic tasks to this very day. Pentium IIIs (and obviously anything prior) setups are just too antiquated and slow, but P4 setups hold out surprisingly well, this may be a substantial factor in them having what may be called at least a semi-cult status.
>>51990594
And you still have celerons and pentiums. So?
>>51990504
Oh nice, you got the joke.
>>51990543
>How could they even fuck it up that badly?
by putting a 31 stage pipeline in a chip and putting the branch prediction at the very end.
>>51989148
2GHz Northwood core P4 checking in motherbitches.
>>51989148
boot up metal gear solid v
>>51990971
>v
That's right, off to >>>/v/ with you.
>>51991070
no amount of memes is going to fix your shitty CPU
you cant download or pirate computing technologies
>>51990483
I have three RDRAM systems: an HP Vectra running a Pentium 4 1.3 that I daily drove for a bit of 2013 and most of 2014 with Windows 2000, an HP Workstation X2100 running a Pentium 4 2.8 (later a 2.2 when I reverted it back to a more date-matched set of parts) with XP that I use as my primary XP test box, and a Compaq W6000 running a Xeon 2.2 and Windows XP, all of them with 1 GB of PC800.
Haven't done much practical testing on the Compaq (I mostly just use it for testing Socket 603 Xeons, have some slower than shit 1.2 GHz engineering sample in it at the moment), but the Vectra was pretty impressive, fine for shitposting, meh for multimedia but still way better than you'd expect of an almost 16 year old system. The WS X2100 can handle reasonable levels of multitasking and web-based multimedia, I'd wager that it would probably be able to handle local 720p or even 1080p playback alright but I've never tested it since my use case isn't very media-intensive at all.
My P4 1.7 (later 2.2) running 1 GB of DDR that I was using before the Vectra was alright at first, but when I go back to it it just feels awful, slow to boot and shitty on the web. Likewise, my DDR ThinkPads are showing their age too.
>>51990554
That's what I figured, but I've always been curious if that was really what was driving that, since I always figured the high clocks were just making up for that shitty 16-bit bus.
>>51991312
It might be, but I'm not sure and I never really fucked around with P4 systems. I had my mandatory one, got an Athlon 64 rig, and didnt look back when I found the A64 rig was significantly faster than the P4 rig. I was made a solid AMD fan once i got my mitts on a A64 x2 CPU.
Then I got a Pentium Dual Core 2.6ghz system practically dumped on me and have been intel since then.
I actually just looked at some really fucking old benchmarks, and RDRAM had a measurable performance boost vs DDR. http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1096&page=1
So there's something about RDRAM that makes it noticeably faster than DDR.
>>51989810
Lacks NX bit.
>>51990762
>82845G Graphics
Ew.
>>51991530
>as if no machine with NX bit has ever been compromised
you can't be serious anon...
... besides that, most Prescott P4 HT's have NX as well as ALL Prescott 2M and Cedar Mill P4's.
>>51991682
Shit machine is shit. It lacks an AGP slot so I can't use my Geforce 6200 I have laying around. It only has PCI slots and finding a decent vid card for cheap for standard PCI is surprisingly difficult.
Add to that the damned thing has a 160W PSU and... well... you get the idea.
>>51991530
Thanks to which they're safe from the garbageware that is Windows 8 and later.
>>51991705
>finding a decent vid card for cheap for standard PCI is surprisingly difficult.
Very much this. I was looking for one recently to fit into a Pentium II retro-rig, and I was bitterly disappointed. For cheap you can get only garbage like S3 Virge DX with 2MBs of VRAM. Getting even an 8, 16 or 32MB card for plain old PCI seems very hard if you aren't willing to shell an amount of money which is quite disproportionate to what you get. I suppose that somehow almost all are either dead by now or found their way into collectors' hands.
>>51990594
Changing the name of your brands doesn't count as innovation. It's not even innovative marketing.
>>51991687
>most Prescott P4 HT's have NX as well
Only the LGA775 ones, the S478 don't have the enu-ekkusu bit.
>>51992035
Old tech is always expensive on places like eBay, if there's a demand for it. Like the retards putting together LGA771/775 Xeon builds for gay men causing the better CPUs and motherboards from that era to cost nearly as much as a brand new Skylake chip and board.
>>51992049
I know, I have a socket 478 3.4GHz Prescott HT in a box somewhere around here.
There were only 6 socket 478 Prescott processors made. Of the remaining 775 Prescott joints, 12 had XD implemented. (517, all 5x0J's, and 5x1 models).
>>51989148
Nah. Its slow even for light tasks. I am good with a dual core
>>51992261
>I have a socket 478 3.4GHz Prescott HT
So do I (I posted >>51990182 earlier). I was thinking about swapping it out for an equivalent Northwood though if I manage to find one for a decent price. It runs significantly cooler, and back in the day it had generally better performance than a Prescott, except for applications where the latter's twice as large L2 cache was important. I wonder if that's still the case today or if the larger cache tended to be more important over the years.
I know OP is just funposting, but I actually do use a P4.
>>51992382
The Netburst pipelines were very long even with Wilamettes and Northwoods (20+ stages IIRC), Prescott is where they went full retard.
>>51992035
There's plenty of good matrox PCI cards for $15-$30, though. And if you aren't dealing with an early Pentium II/PMMX system or older, you should always fit faster AGP cards into your system anyway.
Finding good 3dfx cards is another story though, fuck those are overpriced.
>>51992035
Geforce 5200 PCI cards are still somewhat plentiful. Geforce 6200 PCI's are a bit harder to find. For me to make it worth my while I first need to replace my PSU with something heftier than 160W... maybe 300W. Because the processor is sooo slow I'll need to get a video card that handles H264 in hardware so I'm not watching a slideshow everytime I want to watch something on youtube. This really means a Radeon HD3xxx PCI card but they're $70+. For $70 I can buy an old Core2Duo off Craigslist or something and prolly have change left for beer.
I think I'm going to join the ShitBurst master race tomorrow, there's a bunch of ProLiant housefire sausages at the recycler for $5 a piece and I just can't help myself.
>>51992609
For me it helped tremendously with FL Studio running a bunch of plugins. Going from a 3GHz Northwood HT to a 2.8GHz Prescott HT gave me the ability to use more plugins. Once I saw that I grabbed the first 3.4GHz I could find and never looked back.
>>51992691
>matrox PCI cards
Not too good for games afaik, tend to have problems with 3d accelerations (either the way their circuitry is designed or the drivers were made, dunno). They seem to be aimed at productivity tasks like raster graphics processing and whatnot, not so much 3d stuff (even not the rudimentary from the late 90s).
>you should always fit faster AGP cards into your system anyway
The system has an OEM mobo with integrated Rage Pro 2MB AGP graphics, but no actual AGP slot, so any addon graphics needs to be PCI (or ISA, but who the heck would want that). Thanks to the integrated GPU a 3dfx would be a nice option, but...
>Finding good 3dfx cards is another story though, fuck those are overpriced.
That's pretty much what I figured, they want 20+ bucks for a 4MB Voodoo 1, and anything better is rare and even pricier.
>>51992691
Yeah, but Matrox 3D sucks ass. I have several G-Series matrox cards in a drawer (notably a 16MB G45 Dual Head PCI card) and the 3D on it is far slower than the 82845G built into my i845 chipset.
I did until it died, now I'm on 4690K. You could imagine how I felt after upgrading.
>>51992764
>The system has an OEM mobo with integrated Rage Pro 2MB AGP graphics, but no actual AGP slot, so any addon graphics needs to be PCI (or ISA, but who the heck would want that). Thanks to the integrated GPU a 3dfx would be a nice option, but...
Shit, I hate that stuff. Anymore I typically go for high-end systems whenever I can unless I'm looking for an example of something worse to avoid stuff like that. Wish it was easier said than done to recommend you do the same.
>>51992773
My Millennium II runs slower than fuck in Quake. There isn't jack shit for PCI Pentium II systems though as far as options go, which sucks. There's permedia cards which are cheap as shit but I think they're another pretty much 2D-only deal.
>>51992773
Yea. That retro system is primarly used for DOS games, so fitting such a card would be quite pointless. The integrated Rage Pro it has already does 2D very well (especially coupled with a 266MHz PII CPU which is quite strong for any DOS-era stuff) and surely does 3D better than any Matrox card from those times.
>>51992719
I noticed that low-end cards from the mid-00s like a Radeon 9200 or GF FX 5200 are easier and cheaper to come by than a somewhat decent late 90s 3D card, though I wanted the latter not only for the satisfaction of having something from the era which was fairly decent back then, but also to be sure a DOS driver exists (the PC is mainly used for old games and without a suitable driver 3D acceleration would probably be either unavailable or poor and/or flaky at best).
>>51992892
Nah, Permedia 2 and Intel i740's were the only two cards that had full OpenGL ICD's for a good while. IIRC, the permedia 2 is missing a transparency mode or something like that, but particle effects in Quake 2 can't be beaten by many other cards of it's day. For a PII, I'd go for a PCI TNT2 if you're running WinXP. If you're running 98SE, go for a PCI Savage 4 card. I know Creative used to make one for sure, and they're still out there.
>>51993084
Judging by your CPU, a PCI Permedia2, PCI RIVA 128 or a Voodoo are your best options if you're going for date matching.
>>51993093
yup, that's what I thought: run a search on ebay for "Savage4 PCI"; all manner of PCI S4 cards on there. The advantage to having an S4 (or maybe a Savage3) shows it's head with UT99. UT99 looks best on a Savage 4 using the native METAL API that UT99 supports, and using the second CD with the high res S3TC textures installed.
Runs beautifully and looks gorgeous to boot. Only reason I miss my old Savage 4 Pro+ card.
>>51993093
>Quake 2
Some crafty dude recently ported it to DOS:
http://virtuallyfun.superglobalmegacorp.com/2015/09/17/porting-quake-ii-to-ms-dos-pt5-3dfx-gamespy-quake-2-and-the-universe/
>>51992035
I found a Rage 128 Pro for a couple bucks, but it was low profile or some shit like that and I had to rip a bracket off another card and it doesn't fit right. It went in my 550 MHz late 1999 Athlon rig and it works fine; in fact I am posting from it right now.
>>51993119
Yea, will have to be on the look out for something like that. The PC's original ATA devices were dead or dying and have been swapped out for mid-00s ones (hard disks and optical drives don't age too well, especially if having received much use), but I'd like to keep the graphics date-matched if possible and still allowing to play Quake at (640x480 or perhaps 800x600) rather than the 400x300 that's reasonable with the Rage Pro it has.
>>51993355
What kind of OEM system is it? I feel like going full autism on part recommendations.
I am
Even today's chink atom tablets are more powerful than my main desktop.
Feels bad man
>inb4 dumb frogposter
>>51993376
yup. My wife's Toshiba Encore 2 tablet with it's quad core Atom is much faster than any P4 I have right now.
wouldn't mind building a little box around one of those procs either.
>>51993370
same here, especially since I'm in the middle of a RAMBUS fueled P3 rebuild right now.
>>51993370
It's an old Dell Optiplex GXa. RAM already maxed out at 384 megs, can formally accept a 333MHz PII (didn't find one cheap enough thus far to make the 25% clock speed increase worthwhile), supposedly can use 533MHz or even faster Celerons but with some weirdss crutch adapter cards to make them work with Slot 1, which I'm rather not going to bother with attempting to acquire in $CURRENT_YEAR. The integrated SounblasterPro-compatible audio is ok, but a Gravis Ultrasound would be nice for the games that support it, however I suppose those cannot really be purchased cheaply these days.
Other possible but pointless upgrades would be a PCI SATA controller card (pointless because it already has been fitted with a decent size and shape mid-00s HDD and a DVD drive which werks), a PCI USB2 controller (the integrated USB 1.0 controller with two ports is fair enough for the rare case USB is even used), or a PCI Gigabit Ethernet card (again, the integrated Fast Ethernet card is more than enough).
>>51992750
That appears to be an example of an application where the increased L2 cache of the Prescott proved decisively better (I couldn't imagine it was the even longer pipeline). Still wonder if Prescotts do mostly beat Northwoods nowadays for basic tasks like web browsing/multimedia playback/compiling Gentoo etc., or if the Northwoods still fare a bit better generally. If the latter, it would be a no brainer to swap the Presscott for a Northwood given that the latter is much easier on motherboard components like caps and mosfets with its significantly lower temperatures.
The pentium 4 meme is actually pretty bad. It's rewriting history.
If you have a P4, you were basically cucked. I know it's le hot maymay word, but you were. The only reason you had a p4 is because intel paid off the OEMs to not use the Athlon 64, which was cheaper and faster.
You paid more for a processor that performed worse.
And this 'kek p4s right' is rewriting history.
>>51993590
You mean a Slocket adapter like this? (mine sitting on top of my P3 rebuild). Yeah, if you find one on Ebay for cheap get it. I've had mine since I copped it back in 98 or 99 and it's served me quite well through numerous machines. I'll never part with it.
If I were you I'd just go for an old PCI ATA66 or 100 card and call it a day for that, but I'd prolly opt for an AWE64 or SBLive instead of the Gravis (I also have an SBLive here as well as a few other random sound cards... like the SB Vibra16 I have in the P3). The AWE64 for sure though, can't remember how well the Live handled DOS games straight from DOS. Under Win98 it handled DOS games just fine.
>>51993708
First of all, the Athlon 64 debuted almost three years later than the Pentium 4. Secondly, while the Athlons (be it XP earlier or 64 later) admittedly tended to outperform equivalent P4s in games, it looked quite differently in high-performance productivity applications like 3D graphics rendering, CAD, etc. Many professionals chose the Pentium 4 over an Athlon in the first half of the 00s not because some OEM shoved it down their throat, but because they knew it was objectively the better (even if, admittedly, considerably more expensive) option for them.
>>51993708
Actually... at the time of the P4 AMD was giving us Athlon XP's. Athlon64's came kinda late to the party.
I had Palomino and Barton core Athlon XP's, including the fastest one; the 3200+. I ran a 2500+ for a good while and it was cool and all, but several VSTi plugins I had would bring it to it's knees that a similar P4 would chug right along with.
>>51993760
>You mean a Slocket adapter like this?
Yup, it's that thingy. Allegedly the fastest CPU which was confirmed to work with it on a GXa was a Celeron 766. Albeit, any Celeron above 533MHz will exhibit some problem which won't allow to install NT5-based systems (i.e. Win2k, XP, 2k3).
>If I were you I'd just go for an old PCI ATA66 or 100 card
Not sure if that's even necessary, the almost 30MB/s which are achievable with the integrated ATA33 controller in UDMA-2 mode are quite satisfying, DOS games load almost instantly anyway.
>AWE64
I heard good things about that one too, but similarly to the GUS, I suspect that working specimens are going to be rather pricey. However a successful soundcard upgrade could make a huge difference, changing the often embarassingly squeaky SB sounds into Amiga-level or better audio.
>>51993853
Yea, that's what I also pointed out here >>51993818 . The AMD CPUs had great bang for the buck as far as general purpose and gaming rigs were concerned, but for professional applications where the best available performance was desired, P4s were (despite all their deficiencies stemming from the weird Netburst design and whatnot) very often the obvious choice to go with.
>>51993947
>Albeit, any Celeron above 533MHz will exhibit some problem which won't allow to install NT5-based systems (i.e. Win2k, XP, 2k3).
Nah dude, I've installed XP on my old Celeron 466 o/c 525MHz in the past. I've had NT4, 2000, and XP on it without a single issue.
>>51994009
If it's a 533 or slower which is stably OCed then why not, but the ones that are faster at stock speed apparently have some other differences which trigger the problem (which only pertains to them if they are used via the Slocket adapter on a too dated mobo, on mobos that officially support the faster Celerons NT5 OSes should work as expected).
http://www.angelfire.com/wy/DellOPTIPLEX/Gxa.htm
>Celerons in range of 566-766 will not boot up Windows XP or Windows 2000. The reason is that the FCPGA and SIMD have problems with BIOS's with no Pentium III SIMD support. To make Windows 2000 or XP boot you need a Celeron 533 PPGA processor.
>>51993590
A bit of a shitbox, but perfectly usable. A PCI RIVA 128 sounds like a good match for it.
As far as drives go, I'm really not sure what the fuck Dell's preferred manufacturer was at the time. My older Pentium-era Dells use Quantum, so I would think maybe a Fireball SE or similar reasonably quick IDE drive would be a good fit. For older games you could fit a roomy 12 GB slugfoot TX or something in one of the 5.25'' bays if you have the two-bay model.
Dunno, just an idea. Personally I'd keep an eye out for another system if you're going for maximum performance for the time, I'm personally looking at grabbing a dual-slot Precision or HP Kayak and tri-booting NT4, 98 and DOS for my legacy needs.
I had a god awful northwood based 2.2.ghz celeron once, we also had an athlon 1166mhz (or something like that) which seemed faster.
>>51993237
>"I’ve thought about going back through the source to ‘clean’ it up to make it lock and unlock memory as needed, but this is 2015 not 1997 so good enough is well, good enough."
>>51994161
>A bit of a shitbox
Well, it's obviously a retro rig, not nearly intended to be a main computer in $CURRENT_YEAR.
>Quantum
Yup, it came with a 4GB Quantum Fireball originally (back when manufacturers weren't abusing the GB vs. GiB difference, it was about 4200MiB in size, i.e. even slightly larger rather than smaller than 4GiB). Though, it was very noisy to begin with (whining spindle plus very loud r/w head mechanism) and was retired long ago after having suffered a head crash. As mentioned, I don't intend to fit another thing like that into it, it now has a 160GB drive from 2005 which was left over from another PC.
>tri-booting NT4, 98 and DOS
How would you go about dual-booting DOS and 98 on separate partitions (given that 98 supposedly needs to boot from the first partition, just like DOS does too)?
>>51994068
That makes sense: Up to the 533MHz joint, celerons were based on P2 arch, the 566 on up were based on the P3 and are a different animal all together with different (lower) voltage requirements and whatnot. A 440LX mobo likely wouldn't be able to handle a 566MHz Celeron, but a 440BX should handle it flawlessly and allow it to run NT5 based OS'es.
>tfw P4 cavemen thread hijacked by PII dinosaurs
>>51994411
that anon over there has the P2, I have a P3... And an Athlon Thunderbird... and an Athlon MP machine... and the P4 I'm posting from right now.
>>51994362
>Well, it's obviously a retro rig, not nearly intended to be a main computer in $CURRENT_YEAR.
Oh, no, I mean for the time. Kitted out though it would probably be pretty good even with the limits of the PCI bus.
>As mentioned, I don't intend to fit another thing like that into it,
Didn't catch that, I was just suggesting it if you wanted to go for date matching. Doesn't it have a 32/128GB limit on the ATA controller?
>How would you go about dual-booting DOS and 98 on separate partitions (given that 98 supposedly needs to boot from the first partition, just like DOS does too)?
Microsoft actually has an article on it that I found while looking for how to dual-boot NT4 and 95 on a workstation I'm rebuilding, which was where I got the idea:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/157992
>>51994411
>being a ShitBurst pleb
P6 forever
Ugh I have two optiplex gx280s in my closet. They both have LGA 775 P4s, SATA, and two PCIe slots each, one x1 and one x16. Should I fuck around with them?
>>51994481
why not? You can throw a decent GPU in them and load 'em with 4GB of RAM. Add a Prescott 2M (6x0-series) 775 P4 and you have a machine capable of running a modern OS. Just update the bios and you're good.
I suspect that Dell would have released a BIOS that supported the 662/672 procs or Cedar Mill joints too. The 662/672 add VT-x to the mix for virtualization.
>>51994481
would probably make good servers, keep you warm too
>>51994477
>Oh, no, I mean for the time. Kitted out though it would probably be pretty good even with the limits of the PCI bus.
Yea, some limitations imposed by the design are rather awkward (like the integrated AGP graphics but no AGP slot to upgrade etc.). The worst seems to be some proprietary Dell stuff which cannot be swapped out for just anything (non-standard PSU-mobo connectors and CPU/case fan come to mind).
>Doesn't it have a 32/128GB limit on the ATA controller?
Surprisingly, it doesn't seem to have. BIOS shows 65536MB, but modern OSes which natively support partition layouts and filesystems to even think about going that far don't use BIOS functions for disk access anyway. I was able to successfully read and write data in a small partition at the very end of the drive under WinXP and 2k3. However, the BIOS imposes a limit on where a Windows boot sector or a Linux kernel may be located to be loaded successfully, namely within the lowest 8GiB (this isn't much of a problem though).
>Microsoft actually has an article on it
Thanks, will have a look at it.
>>51994198
>cleaning up John Carmack's code
>dat heresy
Any suggestions for what graphics card I should pair with my Pentium II 333MHz? Has to be PCI.
>>51994951
geforce 2 mx 400
>>51993119
>looked up PCI Riva 128 on local auction site
>two on offer currently, each has a whole 4MB of VRAM
>one is broken, no picture etc.
>another supposedly fine, but costs about $18 including cheapest (and least safe) shipping
>>51994966
>looked up geforce 2 mx 400 at local auction site
>27 on sale currently, seem to have at least 32MB of VRAM, not too expensive either
>every goddamn one is AGP, not a single one PCI
>why.jpg
Are you sure those were made for plain PCI too?
>>51995015
here, have a review:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/26/3
I remember when this one was first published. Ignore the Rendition 2x00 card: 2D is painfully slow on 'em.
>>51995072
>$27
>not too expensive
A 512MB HD 4670 is $21 and beats the everloving shit out of a geforce 2 mx400.
>>51989797
you don't actually know what these CPUs are made for, do you?
>inserting bad jokes
>techfag
>>51995117
There are 27 such cards on sale, the cheapest being priced less than $2 w/o shipping.
>A 512MB HD 4670 is $21
Lucky you, I guess. On said local auction site an AGP HD 4670 (1GB, no 512GB ones on offer currently) goes for ~$60 w/o shipping.
>>51989148
I was. Until 2008 when I got a much better Core 2 processor.
/thread
>>51995078
I guess that a RIVA TNT2 M64 32MB which can be had for ~$20 constitutes a much better option than that RIVA 128 4MB for $18, doesn't it.
>>51989641
but I am
>>51995078
Nice to see an article from back then still up (most sites would probably have deleted such content long ago). Would be even nicer to see it in the original layout. I don't see a RIVA card mentioned there though.
>>51995333
Ok, now I saw the bottom line
>For you Pentium II users...what are you doing reading this review? Grab a Riva card instead ;)
Is that what you >>51995078 meant?
this computer under my tv in this pic is a 3 ghz P4 with HyperThreading. Also has 4 gigs of ram and an MSI n9800gt Overclocker card. Wont play the newest of the new, but still does the job!
>>51992035
As long as you are running Windows XP you can get a "new" PCI card for it.
http://www.amazon.com/Sparkle-GeForce-64bit-Graphics-700041/dp/B00F3ZNIME/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1450779364&sr=1-1&keywords=Sparkle+GeForce+610
>>51995456
>pci 6XX series card
>pci card with hdmi
welp, didn't think i'd ever see that
>>51995528
Useless for retro rig meant to play 90s games. No DOS driver means no 3D acceleration under DOS.
>>51992035
Passively cooled, 512Mb RAM PCI 2.1
http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-S-Video-Graphics-512-P1-N402-LR/dp/B001V9LQC0/ref=pd_sim_147_2/175-0490645-4199434?ie=UTF8&dpID=51EZksleuNL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR160%2C160_&refRID=0S6WCG9VQNG7VQ66AVZQ
>>51995579
no, but it could potentially make a pentium 3 HTPC (assuming it can into hardware video decoding, don't see why it wouldn't), which would be... interesting
I'm using a Pentimum M on my laptop, does it count as a Pentium 4 ?
>>51989148
>Massive heat
>Power hungy
>Obliterated by contemporary AMD counterparts
Worst intel creation by far
>>51997165
it's like intel fags forgot how much the Athlon 64 was smoking them back then
