1. Probably there are some, but you will meet them only with very bad luck.
2. Single Tualatin for convenience
3. pretty well
4. dunno
5. yes
6. yes

I would recommend Windows 98, 512 MB RAM should do.

If you aren't using DOS, install Windows 2000 Professional instead of 98.

If you're going with dual P3's then your only choice is an NT based OS like 2k or XP. If the P3's are fast enough (1ghz or higher) you might even get away with Windows 7. The minimum requirements only state 1ghz or faster x86 or x64 processor, not what type of CPU it expects to find. Win9x OS's won't recognize the second CPU so it would just sit there doing nothing. Remember to get a 32-bit Professional, Enterprise or Ultimate version of Win2K or later, though, because those are the ones that recognize multiple CPU's. Starter and Home versions don't, and that includes Home Premium. Starter and Home will work with multiple cores on one CPU but not multiple CPU's.

4. Geforce4 can't run glide titles. It's not native.

6. Probably because of paletted texturing is supposedly supported.

1: No post DoS era games have a frame cap so speed issues with faster cpus are not an issue.
2: P3 1ghz is more than enough for late 90s era games. If you want to go dual cpu then go for it as there is no harm.
3:Once again a p3 1ghz is just fine and if you feel that you are on thin margins then go for the 1.4ghz 512kb model. It holds up even in some modern apps.
4:Geforece4 won't run Glide without a wrapper and the wrapper is cpu based from my understanding. Use with two v2 with the 4400ti. By the way I would ditch the stock cooler for something better.
5:Should be and haven't had issues except for some titles do need win 9x to run right but those are few.
6:Yes for DX and openGL that games that don't call the v2 for 3d use it will make a great combo.

Since he mentioned gaming as his main goal on this machine, I would not recommend Win2k and above, because a large number (probably most) of late 90s games, and even up to 2001, do not play well with an OS beyond Win98. Even KOTOR, a 2003 game, runs smoothly on my Win98, Nvidia 4200TI, 1.4ghz Tualatin rig. Just my opinion.

Didn't we go through a lot of this in your other thread?

n3xu5 wrote:

I'm considering building one of three possible machine configurations for 9x-Xp gaming. Either a P3 Tualatin 1.4, a dual P3 Tualatin 1.4, or a P4 3.2-800 Northwood.

-512mb-1gb memory depending on the cpu config.

Most Intel P3 chipsets carry a maximum of 512 MB, and XP doesn't seem to run all that smoothly with that amount of RAM.

Jorpho wrote:

Didn't we go through a lot of this in your other thread?

n3xu5 wrote:

I'm considering building one of three possible machine configurations for 9x-Xp gaming. Either a P3 Tualatin 1.4, a dual P3 Tualatin 1.4, or a P4 3.2-800 Northwood.

-512mb-1gb memory depending on the cpu config.

Most Intel P3 chipsets carry a maximum of 512 MB, and XP doesn't seem to run all that smoothly with that amount of RAM.

It can and will run decently with as little as 192mb but he/she has to tweak it properly and not install all the update. SP3 xp pro actually runs very good with low demands until updated when connected to the net. Third choosing the right drives for os install and page file makes a world of difference. The rest that is compatibility limited dual boot solves that problem 😉

nforce4max wrote:

SP3 xp pro actually runs very good with low demands until updated when connected to the net. Third choosing the right drives for os install and page file makes a world of difference.

Can you please elaborate on this some more?

Jorpho wrote:

nforce4max wrote:

SP3 xp pro actually runs very good with low demands until updated when connected to the net. Third choosing the right drives for os install and page file makes a world of difference.

Can you please elaborate on this some more?

Which one? The drives or the updates? I cherry pick my boot and page file drives before I start my builds so that I don't live with to much of a bottleneck. In win xp, vista, win7, and win server 2008 you can move the page file to a different drive or partition of your choosing. For page file I look for drives that have decent random 4k performance while for boot I look for drives with good sequential performance.

That makes sense if you have a bunch of drives with substantially different performance sitting around, I guess. But regarding the updates?

Jorpho wrote:

That makes sense if you have a bunch of drives with substantially different performance sitting around, I guess. But regarding the updates?

you can run xp flawlessly on a 512mb system as long as you disable resource-hogging services and visual themes. there are plenty of websites recommending setups for gaming,etc.

Sure, and if you use nLite, you can even cut them out of the XP installation entirely. But I'm wondering what's this about a fresh install of XP SP3 being slowed down by "updates".

Jorpho wrote:

Sure, and if you use nLite, you can even cut them out of the XP installation entirely. But I'm wondering what's this about a fresh install of XP SP3 being slowed down by "updates".

tha wouldn't be a very wise thing to do, you might want to re-enable them occasionaly to connect to the internet, use other software, etc.

i was actually refering to this "Most Intel P3 chipsets carry a maximum of 512 MB, and XP doesn't seem to run all that smoothly with that amount of RAM."

it can run smoothly without cutting everything down. just what is needed. as for what nforce4max said, i think sp2 is a good compromise between speed and stability. sp3 might be "safer", but with each update and service pack installed you certainly lose some speed, especially low spec machines.

True. There was this one thread though where I said that I had a few Pentium 4 machines going really slow with SP3. Turns out none of them had an Intel chipset, all of them had SiS and Via chipsets... Had a Prescott 3.2 with 1GB RAM a couple of months ago with an 865PE chipset and it was extremely fast!
Dunno about the Pentium 3 though... In theory, dual Tualatin 1.4 should be faster right?

Win XP is great for games from 2001 and onwards. And you can use DOSBox to play pretty much every DOS game on a fast machine (could run everything I wanted, albeit not in high resolutions on the Prescott 3.2). I also used nGlide to run Glide games (better than any 3dfx card too, 1280x1024 looked awesome on every game 😁).
Don't know about some other early Windows games though. A lot of them had problems with WinXP. Why don't you create a dual boot setup with Win9x for those pesky videogames that just won't work on XP?

also add a Vortex 2 soundcard, you won't regret it. there werea lot of games that supported Aureal3D and rumor has it that is was vastly superior to early EAX.

http://www.quantexzone.com/index.php/vortex-o … orting-3d-audio

Aureal cards are cool, but some games will give you grief. Sin is very unstable with A3D cards, for example.

Another problem you might come across is driver related with older titles. Installing a Ti4400 is a good idea. Bear in mind that this Geforce 4 cannot run Doom III or even Farcry at a nice rate, but anything previous to these should fly with that card. They matched the 9800pro for directx 8 speeds, and exceeded ATI in openGL titles.

I mention drivers as you will want to install a detonator around the time of 2002. I seem to recall that System Shock II (and all games based on that engine) broke with a certain release of the detonator circa 2005. You can get the most of your Ti4400 with the 50 or 53 driver.

I've never tried to run old (pre 1999) games on a FAST pentium 4, but I can't see there being any problems in windows. Dos would be a different story. But I'm sure anything that struggled natively would run fine in DOSBOX with a CPU like a 3.4 northwood.

And if a game supports both Glide AND directx/openGL, then the Ti4400 will dick all over the V2 SLI. But some games, some GOOD games, were specifically designed for glide, with an openGL option thrown in last minute. So having all angles covered will not be a bad thing.

What are the most demanding games for the PC pre Doom III?

Deus Ex maybe? Total Annihilation (CPU wise)? Or Giants : Citizen Kabuto?

With the build you mention you should be fine. But please use a good, stable, OLD driver 😊

Iris030380 wrote:

What are the most demanding games for the PC pre Doom III?

Deus Ex maybe? Total Annihilation (CPU wise)? Or Giants : Citizen Kabuto?

😊

As a prelude to Doom 3, Morrowind comes to mind as probably one of the most hardware demanding games, which came out in May 2002.