Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

Why would somebody use Win98?


Azelza
 Share

Recommended Posts


Actually, even some 1.8GHz Core2 Duo should beat the crap out of a 3GHz P4, even in sigle core mode...

I have no way to disprove you but my instinct is that this might be wrong. I have found that L2 cache size has been the most significant factor in speed bumps on Win9x. As important as Transistors and Pipelines are, L2 has IMHO been the traditional bottleneck. I see in Wiki that those early C2D chips used 2 MB of the actual 4 MB. So to me this hypothetical comparison looks like Pentium 4 @ 3.x GHz 2MB L2 with old architecture versus one core of a Core2 Duo @ 1.8 GHz 2MB L2 with new architecture running Win9x. The 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 would be running exactly twice as fast as the C2D while using the same size L2. It sure looks to me like a lot of raw horsepower to be overcome by the optimized architecture. But you could be right, just saying that my gut says no. Another unspoken parameter here is power consumption. In this hypothetical matchup multi-core CPUs may in fact be using more power to do the same amount of work (remember we are talking about Win9x here). Someone please correct me but wouldn't the other invisible cores still be powered up? Again, this is only a hunch, a very controlled experiment would be insightful!

Pentium 4 (and its architecture) was Intel's most horrible mistake ever... Early P4s got beaten up by identically clocked P3s

Repectfully disagree about P4 being the biggest mistake, since Intel has certainly made some doozies. 8088 vs 8086 was a worse idea. 286 had a legendary error. Pentium floating point bugs, Pentium II and III slots, etc ...

I remember PIII 1.x GHz becoming available when I still had a PIII Coppermine 600 but never got one. I actually still have my first P4 (Williamette 1.3 GHz), not using it presently though. Those early P4's were a pain because they coincided with WinXP: memory was SDRAM!, L2 was 256 KB!, WinXP was slowwww (if WinXP had been delayed several years and Win9x/Win2K remained on the shelves history would be drastically different). However I don't remember any comparable P3-P4 clock rates. (As usual, Wiki proves me wrong :realmad: : the final PIII was a Tualatin 1.4 GHz). But did anyone really compare them? The P4 certainly had Transistor and Pipeline improvements over the PIII so it seems counter-intuitive for P4's to be beaten by PIII's.

In my little corner of the world, the Northwoods and Prescotts were big steps forward. Substantial upgrades had really become attainable by merely swapping in new processors. I did a lot of these. Now if only Intel would keep a socket footprint for more than 5 minutes. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can imagine using Win98 if you live in a third world country......

So I don't understand you people.............

Go Away.

The troll never been around since his initial post.

Here, just in case he is back: go_away.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, this "go away" stuff will stop now. just because someone 'trolls' does not give you the right to flame them. if someone needs to 'go away' the mods will handle that.

7.b This community is built upon mutual respect. You are not allowed to flame other members. People who do not respect personal opinions and/or personal work will be warned in first instance. If you ignore the warning and keep on flaming, you will be banned without notice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, this "go away" stuff will stop now. just because someone 'trolls' does not give you the right to flame them. if someone needs to 'go away' the mods will handle that.
7.b This community is built upon mutual respect. You are not allowed to flame other members. People who do not respect personal opinions and/or personal work will be warned in first instance. If you ignore the warning and keep on flaming, you will be banned without notice.

I think I may have inadvertently started this by using the T-word first in the thread. Sorry about that. It was meant to be funny but does look harsh a few days later. :blushing:

I'll try and set things right by cleaning up Post #36 and Post #57.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no way to disprove you but my instinct is that this might be wrong. I have found that L2 cache size has been the most significant factor in speed bumps on Win9x. As important as Transistors and Pipelines are, L2 has IMHO been the traditional bottleneck. I see in Wiki that those early C2D chips used 2 MB of the actual 4 MB. So to me this hypothetical comparison looks like Pentium 4 @ 3.x GHz 2MB L2 with old architecture versus one core of a Core2 Duo @ 1.8 GHz 2MB L2 with new architecture running Win9x. The 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 would be running exactly twice as fast as the C2D while using the same size L2. It sure looks to me like a lot of raw horsepower to be overcome by the optimized architecture. But you could be right, just saying that my gut says no.

Not-so-old C2D's use the cache more dynamically than that, one core can use more than half of the total cache depending on the load. Anyway, speed depends much on what is being done, if a P4 needs... lets say... 1000 clocks for a given set of instructions, and a Core2 requires 600, that won't change if you use Windows 98 instead of XP;

Another unspoken parameter here is power consumption. In this hypothetical matchup multi-core CPUs may in fact be using more power to do the same amount of work (remember we are talking about Win9x here). Someone please correct me but wouldn't the other invisible cores still be powered up? Again, this is only a hunch, a very controlled experiment would be insightful!

Core2 is based on Core, which is based on Pentium M, a mobile processor. I think a Core2 is less power intensive than a NetBurst processor.

Repectfully disagree about P4 being the biggest mistake, since Intel has certainly made some doozies. 8088 vs 8086 was a worse idea. 286 had a legendary error. Pentium floating point bugs, Pentium II and III slots, etc ...

Perhaps, but I still think NetBurst was worse simply because there was some decent competitor ready to take advantage of the circumstances.

I remember PIII 1.x GHz becoming available when I still had a PIII Coppermine 600 but never got one. I actually still have my first P4 (Williamette 1.3 GHz), not using it presently though. Those early P4's were a pain because they coincided with WinXP: memory was SDRAM!, L2 was 256 KB!, WinXP was slowwww (if WinXP had been delayed several years and Win9x/Win2K remained on the shelves history would be drastically different). However I don't remember any comparable P3-P4 clock rates. (As usual, Wiki proves me wrong :realmad: : the final PIII was a Tualatin 1.4 GHz). But did anyone really compare them? The P4 certainly had Transistor and Pipeline improvements over the PIII so it seems counter-intuitive for P4's to be beaten by PIII's.

Actually, when P4 was launched, I remember reading in a magazine that, at Intel's presentation of the processor, or something like that, P4 was quite some disappointment even when compared to PIII... NetBurst was pure marketing, it allowed the clock to go higher than ever.... even nowadays we are beggining to see 3.0 Core2 become common, but any old PentiumD is 2.8GHz@stock at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason = To play older games without issues.

Yup, that too.

Actually T.N.G.O.G., I just replied so that I had a way to ask you a question. Where is that Windows flag from? Custom made or does it exist somewhere? Looks very cool (although small). :thumbup

av-197122.jpg

(above: tried including the link opera returns for your avatar).

I'd like to see it wallpaper sized.

P.S. someone has to ask, what does T.N.G.O.G. stand for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks geek. Like a lot of folks I've been collecting those flags since the beginning. Hadn't seen his before. Those three you linked to slipped by me as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...