VERAULT
Veteran Member
Not me. I never patch anything. And thsts why my stuff runs so well and for so long.
But i wasnt running XP past the core 2 duos.
- VCF South West - June 14 - 16, Davidson-Gundy Alumni Center at University of Texas at Dallas
- VCF West - Aug 2 - 3, Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA
- VCF Midwest - Sept 7 - 8 2024, Schaumburg, IL
- VCF SoCal - Mid February 2025, Location TBD, Southern CA
- VCF East - April 2025, Infoage Museum, Wall NJ
-
Please review our updated Terms and Rules here
You know what seems to be extra rare? Pentium II and III Xeons.
- Thread starter hunterjwizzard
- Start date
But i wasnt running XP past the core 2 duos.
hunterjwizzard
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Messages
- 844
Again: yes it runs. But if you go to the next generation(which still supports XP natively) it is so much better.
Consider it like this: yes, you can make Windows98 run on a 133mhz Pentium I. But it really shines on a Pentium III. XP is the same; it'll go on a P4 but it shines better on a Core2 Duo with max RAM.
maxtherabbit
Veteran Member
I run XP on a dual pentium pro 233 machine...
CommodoreZ
Experienced Member
For the longest time, my dad had a Pentium II at 350MHz being used as his main computer, and eventually relegated to his film scanner rig because it had a SCSI interface. He got it with 98 to start with, then he upgraded it to 2000, and eventually XP Pro. It stayed in service like that well into the era of Windows 7 due to it performing a specific task that he needed done. It ain't fast, but it'll run.
Now you've got me curious if XP will run on that PII Xeon I showed earlier in the thread...
Now you've got me curious if XP will run on that PII Xeon I showed earlier in the thread...
twolazy
Veteran Member
That the Dual PPro board I sold you?
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
Windows XP didn’t even come out until a year after the Pentium 4 debuted; the Pentium 3 was still a mainstream CPU for new computers, especially for laptops, for at least another couple years.
”Shines” is an interesting word. I know it’s heresy to say anything nice about any version of Windows newer than XP (or is it 7? I keep losing track), but the one thing that actually impressed me about Windows 10 was how much more responsive the UI is compared to any version I remember going back into the 9x era…
hunterjwizzard
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Messages
- 844
In my case the answer to that is because I was running a high-end 3D and video editing workstation, and needed the extra "umphf" that only a dual-socket rig could provide. It turns out, when you use an application that was designed to take full advantage of multiple CPUs, it runs like gangbusters.
I've actually had the exact opposite experience. Like completely 180 degrees.
Lately I've been running "retro" LAN parties with a combination of new and old PCs. Since the "new"-ish systems run modern hardware, I fairly routinely wipe and re-load Windows 10. Fresh, out of the box, without network connectivity, it feels like I'm wading through cement. 10 seems to have some stupid background process it feels is MUCH more important than the UI actually being usable.
Compare to a windows 98 or hell even Windows 7 fresh install. Both are zippy as can be. Its such a weird feeling to load up windows 98 for the first time and actually be able to use it. I keep my daily driver windows 10 PCs running 24/7 because I know every reboot comes with 30+ minutes of sitting there letting the thing think about being a computer before it lets me work.
As far as "shining", I'm not talking about the UI. I'm talking about being able to use the system to its fullest potential. The Core2 Duo, even with the exact same clock speed, is just better than a P4. The available RAM is faster. A Geforce 8800 can run circles around even the very fastest AGP cards(I think they made some AGP 7800s, but they were trash?).
When you add it all up, if you have nostalgia for the Windows XP era, you want a later machine. It does everything its predecessors did, but better.
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
I guess dunno what to say. Whenever people rave about how great older versions of Windows are I feel like I’ve been living my whole life with a pair of those magic sunglasses from “They Live” strapped onto my face so only I see the monsters. The weird slowdowns and jerky behavior of the Windows UI has irked me since 9x, and I feel like XP was by far the worst of the bunch. (I swear, EVERY SINGLE TIME I boot a Windows XP machine and stab the Start button the first time I get a “no, I’m not *really* ready” hiccup out of it, not, you know, the Start menu. Unless, maybe, I walked off and got coffee so it could sit there for another five minutes and sort itself out before I touched it.) Windows 10 doesn’t do that. Seriously, that’s it, being able to actually click on stuff when the UI was inviting me to and have it work just felt otherworldly to me…
(FWIW, I’m kind of getting these bad vibes from Windows 11; setting up the kid’s xmas laptop kiiiinda made a vein or two throb in my head. I’m hoping I was just conflating internet congestion downloading twenty-seven-gazzilion updates and stuff for actual UI regression…)
But, yeah, I’m not going to argue, if it works for other people then I guess I’m willing to bear the bad karma or whatever it is. For their sake.
Last edited:
shirsch
Veteran Member
I'm not sure they ever built a quad version, but I ran a monster, honking dual Slot B motherboard in a system here. Had a very hard time finding a PC case that was deep enough to accomodate it. Each module had two screaming high-speed fans on the end and it was not fun being in the room with it when running. I ran Digital Unix / Tru64 and Linux on it. Ended up giving it away along with all my other workstations about ten years ago. I was running short on storage space and something had to give.
maxtherabbit
Veteran Member
NoThat the Dual PPro board I sold you?
The DBX on that one is in need of replacement. I was attempting to remove one of those heatsinks with the god awful clamps which require a screwdriver to take off and the fucking pot metal harbor freight bit shattered. Sent what was left of it directly into the pins of the DBX
VERAULT
Veteran Member
IS that what they call the Xeon slots? Slot B?
krebizfan
Veteran Member
Slot A is slot 1 but reversed and completely different electrically. Don't mistake the two.
VERAULT
Veteran Member
I remember how stupid I thought these slotted CPU were. And I thought it was a bad move for AMD to copy intel on this one too. They went right back to chips on the mainboard which showed they were garbage.
I had Pentium 1 machines (75, 133, and 166mhz which later I upgraded to 233mhz when the cpus were cheap). But I was really Running AMD K6-2 at the time which I thought was the bees knees with my voodoo 2 sli. I didnt get a slot 1 machine until after they were outdated and to this day never even touched a slot A system.
I had Pentium 1 machines (75, 133, and 166mhz which later I upgraded to 233mhz when the cpus were cheap). But I was really Running AMD K6-2 at the time which I thought was the bees knees with my voodoo 2 sli. I didnt get a slot 1 machine until after they were outdated and to this day never even touched a slot A system.
NeXT
Veteran Member
I thought it was nice because it made upgrading a lot easier. There was even a period where you could get water blocks for Slot 1/A. Slotket adapters were quick to follow. You also ended up with a really fancy looking CPU module 15 or so years before it was the fad to have windowed PC cases with colored lighting.
It wasn't like the support frame was fragile. The latching mechanism also worked well. They both tried it, decided "nah" and we were still par for the course because AMD was just as bad as Intel at announcing a new chip alongside a new socket.
It wasn't like the support frame was fragile. The latching mechanism also worked well. They both tried it, decided "nah" and we were still par for the course because AMD was just as bad as Intel at announcing a new chip alongside a new socket.
krebizfan
Veteran Member
The Slot designs were a good way to have a multi-chip module without needing a socket the size of one's hand. Two die shrinks later and even more cache could be put on a nice small socketed chip.
My tweener uses an Intel motherboard with Slot 1. Reliability is a wonderful thing.
My tweener uses an Intel motherboard with Slot 1. Reliability is a wonderful thing.
VERAULT
Veteran Member
I have two Dell Optiplex GX1 systems. Both are identical BX slot 1 machines. Came out with P2 slot 1 cpus. With a bios upgrade you can use pentium 3. Limited to 100mhz bus. So I have a Sloket on one with a 1100mhz P3 cpu which was the last 100mhz FSB cpu in the line running on it.
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
Witness the Pentium Pro. It's not just size, of course, it's cost; the chip packaging for the PPro was expensive and awkward compared to Slot 1/2, where you can assemble the module using conventional surface mount/BGA manufacturing processes.
(Multi-chip modules aren't dead, of course, but modern ones use more advanced die mounting techniques that are a lot less expensive than the PPro's MCM.)
The classic problem with CPU upgrades is of course the diminishing returns you inevitably run into when cramming faster CPUs (with higher and higher bus multipliers) into the same socket, inheriting the same limitations on memory bandwidth, northbridge features, etc. Honestly, if you're not needing a new socket when your new CPU comes out you've probably not improved it enough to really make it a worthwhile upgrade.
The only reason Intel and AMD consumer CPUs are socketed at all instead of just being soldered straight onto motherboards is because of inventory management and marketing. It's actually pretty absurd in retrospect, thinking back to the early 'aughts when you could walk into Fry's, look at the big board of CPU prices, and marvel at the utter randomness at how much extra each 50 or 66mhz leap in clock speed would add to the base price. (A rule of thumb that holds even today was if you were building a high-end PC you bought the *second* fastest CPU of a given family, not the fastest, because they would utterly *nail* you for that last little bit that you'd *never* notice without a benchmark.) That's a market that only works when you can sell the CPU and the motherboard separately; it's a sure bet that if they'd been mated at the factory(*) computers would have come in a lot fewer speed grades.
(* Which technically would have made a lot of sense in terms of total cost and reliability; giant zero insertion force sockets are expensive and take up a lot of board real estate, heat sink mountings are error prone, etc.)
hunterjwizzard
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Messages
- 844
From a vintage perspective I greatly prefer the slot design over sockets. I had a heat sink clamp on a socketed AMD system fail once(way back when the board was new, no less) and ever since then I've never trusted them. I use a few now, but for my voodoo 3 win98 machine I required a slot1 CPU.