Building myself a Pentium

[wierd_w]

12 hours ago, eightbit said:

 

Yep, I know. I do that with all of my system builds and have been doing it on machines since the 90's.  Makes it easy also when an application calls for something in a cab file too...no shuffling for a CD or CD image.

 

The thing is I was prelim testing this and I had NO cd drive at all Well, I do in other systems but I was not about to steal one from any of those. I have one on the way, but I was just eager to play around with the system. Since I have the images for the floppy version of Windows 95B I figured I'd just stick them on a flash drive and use the Gotek to at least get the OS installed.

 

It actually worked out great. The install really didn't take long (since disk swapping just consisted of pressing the "next image" button on the Gotek when necessary) and the install really did not take too long. Afterward I was able to install Daemon Tools and launch ISO and BIN/CUE images of the various installers and stuff I have and install all of the drivers for the video, 3dfx and sound...and Plus! for WIndows 95 because you know I need some Dangerous Creatures!

 

Well, I mean, if this is using a CF adapter, you could just copy the install folder on that way, and not muss with floppies at all...

 

There is also a DOS 'SCSI' driver for USB thumb drives one could use for this (since this is a pentium system, and likely has this).

https://hddguru.com/software/2006.02.09-USBASPI-MS-DOS-Driver/

 

(additionally, this was a common use case for FX.EXE over an LPT cable, back in the day.)

 

 

[leech]

On 5/17/2022 at 8:00 AM, zzip said:

Let's be honest here, it's all the ribbon cables of the era that were a pain in the ass and made it hard to put the case back together properly-  they always seem to protrude just enough to be a problem.   Then you have to press them down and make sure none obstruct the CPU fan.    Ugh, thankfully SATA came along and helped a lot.

Ha, the solution to that these days is nVME on the motherboard, and no optical drives or floppy drives.  With a AIO, you end up with just about zero cables in your system.  If they made something for power...

[Keatah]

4 hours ago, leech said:

If they made something for power...

I suppose they could do that by specifying an exact power supply size and position it exactly just-so in relation to the motherboard. And where the two meet there'd be an "SLI" type bridge connector that screws in. Or put the power supply directly on the board itself. Those are solutions we'll not likely ever see for obvious practical reasons.

 

Best we can do is make square-shaped and right-angle conduits that cover the cables. Not unlike smoke-alarm conduits.

[leech]

1 hour ago, Keatah said:

I suppose they could do that by specifying an exact power supply size and position it exactly just-so in relation to the motherboard. And where the two meet there'd be an "SLI" type bridge connector that screws in. Or put the power supply directly on the board itself. Those are solutions we'll not likely ever see for obvious practical reasons.

 

Best we can do is make square-shaped and right-angle conduits that cover the cables. Not unlike smoke-alarm conduits.

Yeah, I was thinking something similar.  Like if you look up the NLX motherboard form factor, it has an edge connector for the riser card.  Something similar for a wireless PSU would work well if manufacturers could agree to it being a new standard.

Now that I think about it, the IIGS has a similar edge connector that was apparently used for diagnostics and such.

[eightbit]

I found a USB PCI card in my pile of e-waste (I swear that $70 pile I picked up from that seller some time ago has gone a LONG way) and popped it into the Pentium build today to get some USB flash drive functionality in Windows 95. I used "XUSBSUPP" which works great. I actually needed to install that anyway as Daemon Tools (v3.46) complained that USB supplementary support was not installed and would not install without it. I guess the program uses it in some way.

 

But in any case, I wanted to be able to use USB sticks anyway. Swapping out the CF to a modern PC for adding stuff works fine and all, but it means having to shut the machine down to take it out as of course it is not hot swappable. So, USB flash drive support is nice to have.

 

Here's the link to the software. It is equivalent to the Windows 98 "unofficial usb flash drive support" package I am sure everyone has used, but for Windows 95B and 95C:

 

https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2018/05/xusbsupp-extended-usb-supplement-for.html

 

[leech]

29 minutes ago, eightbit said:

I found a USB PCI card in my pile of e-waste (I swear that $70 pile I picked up from that seller some time ago has gone a LONG way) and popped it into the Pentium build today to get some USB flash drive functionality in Windows 95. I used "XUSBSUPP" which works great. I actually needed to install that anyway as Daemon Tools (v3.46) complained that USB supplementary support was not installed and would not install without it. I guess the program uses it in some way.

 

But in any case, I wanted to be able to use USB sticks anyway. Swapping out the CF to a modern PC for adding stuff works fine and all, but it means having to shut the machine down to take it out as of course it is not hot swappable. So, USB flash drive support is nice to have.

 

Here's the link to the software. It is equivalent to the Windows 98 "unofficial usb flash drive support" package I am sure everyone has used, but for Windows 95B and 95C:

 

https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2018/05/xusbsupp-extended-usb-supplement-for.html

 

Last time I tried to get usb storage to work on Win9x, it was slow as hell and not stable with larger flash sticks.  What size are you using, and is your USB card a 2.0 or just 1.x?

[eightbit]

31 minutes ago, leech said:

Last time I tried to get usb storage to work on Win9x, it was slow as hell and not stable with larger flash sticks.  What size are you using, and is your USB card a 2.0 or just 1.x?

 

As far as I can tell it is USB 1.0. I am using an 8GB PNY drive. Worked fine for copying the Microsoft Plus! for Windows 95 ISO which was like 35MB. That took a few seconds so its not really all that bad.

[+OLD CS1]

I am fairly certain that USB2.0 support did not come until Windows ME and Windows 2000 SP4.  ISTR that even with a USB2.0 card and the proper chipset drivers, 98SE would only use USB1.0.  Can anyone corroborate that?

[Keatah]

1 hour ago, leech said:

Now that I think about it, the IIGS has a similar edge connector that was apparently used for diagnostics and such.

Yes it did. So did the //e.

 

It could technically work no doubt about that. But then case design flexibility would be reduced. And the cost to make a reliable connector of the type necessary would increase on both PSU and MOBO. Consumers won't like either.

[leech]

5 hours ago, OLD CS1 said:

I am fairly certain that USB2.0 support did not come until Windows ME and Windows 2000 SP4.  ISTR that even with a USB2.0 card and the proper chipset drivers, 98SE would only use USB1.0.  Can anyone corroborate that?

I think the USB2.0 support was added to Win98 with the service pack 3 that is floating around online.

[leech]

13 hours ago, Keatah said:

Yes it did. So did the //e.

 

It could technically work no doubt about that. But then case design flexibility would be reduced. And the cost to make a reliable connector of the type necessary would increase on both PSU and MOBO. Consumers won't like either.

Yeah, was just a thought.  Ha, wireless displays are a thing too... how cool would a wireless computer setup be...

[+OLD CS1]

8 hours ago, leech said:

I think the USB2.0 support was added to Win98 with the service pack 3 that is floating around online.

I can believe that, as the Unofficial Service Packs are a lot of back-ported WinMe and Win2k stuff.

[zzip]

15 hours ago, eightbit said:

As far as I can tell it is USB 1.0. I am using an 8GB PNY drive. Worked fine for copying the Microsoft Plus! for Windows 95 ISO which was like 35MB. That took a few seconds so its not really all that bad.

USB 1.x is slow as hell.   I don't think it was really designed for mass storage devices, more for attaching things like keyboard, mice, game controllers that didn't have high bandwidth requirements.

[+OLD CS1]

42 minutes ago, zzip said:

USB 1.x is slow as hell.   I don't think it was really designed for mass storage devices, more for attaching things like keyboard, mice, game controllers that didn't have high bandwidth requirements.

The USB PG planned for mass storage devices with the release of USB1.0, but they knew two things: most external mass storage options at the time were small (measured in 100s of MBs, with GBs being expensive and niche,) and the USB interface would become faster over time as external storage options evolved and file sizes increased.  USB devices were less complicated and just as fast in practice as IEEE 1284 parallel port counterparts, like CD-ROMs and Zip Drives.  It all worked out.

[leech]

2 minutes ago, OLD CS1 said:

The USB SIG planned for mass storage devices with the release of USB1.0, but they knew two things: most external mass storage options at the time were small (measured in 100s of MBs, with GBs being expensive and niche,) and the USB interface would become faster over time as external storage options evolved and file sizes increased.  USB devices were less complicated and just as fast in practice as IEEE 1284 parallel port counterparts, like CD-ROMs and Zip Drives.  It all worked out.

And now we have this messed up situation where you have a USB port, but it could be 3.0, 3.1 or 3.2, or could be USB-C, or TB3/4.  And TB4 is the exact same as TB3, just with stricter specs.

[+OLD CS1]

1 minute ago, leech said:

And now we have this messed up situation where you have a USB port, but it could be 3.0, 3.1 or 3.2, or could be USB-C, or TB3/4.  And TB4 is the exact same as TB3, just with stricter specs.

Yeah, the TB thing is annoying.  USB-C is just the connector, which can carry everything from USB2 to USB3.x.  Apparently a USB4 spec is on the horizon, too.

[leech]

6 minutes ago, OLD CS1 said:

Yeah, the TB thing is annoying.  USB-C is just the connector, which can carry everything from USB2 to USB3.x.  Apparently a USB4 spec is on the horizon, too.

Yeah, almost as annoying as HDMI has become.

[+OLD CS1]

1 minute ago, leech said:

Yeah, almost as annoying as HDMI has become.

I was actually thinking that as I wrote my last response.

[mr_me]

10 hours ago, leech said:

I think the USB2.0 support was added to Win98 with the service pack 3 that is floating around online.

Probably the USB hardware manufacturer driver in that unofficial service pack.  Adding USB 2.0 support to Windows 98 SE should only require the USB adapter card driver disk and the Windows 98 SE install CD.

[zzip]

26 minutes ago, OLD CS1 said:

The USB PG planned for mass storage devices with the release of USB1.0, but they knew two things: most external mass storage options at the time were small (measured in 100s of MBs, with GBs being expensive and niche,) and the USB interface would become faster over time as external storage options evolved and file sizes increased.  USB devices were less complicated and just as fast in practice as IEEE 1284 parallel port counterparts, like CD-ROMs and Zip Drives.  It all worked out.

I'm sure they planned it,  but I don't think you could even comfortably use a low capacity drive at USB 1.x speeds.      USB 2.0 dramatically increased the speed from 12 to 480Mbps   

 

34 minutes ago, OLD CS1 said:

  USB-C is just the connector, which can carry everything from USB2 to USB3.x.

The connector changes are annoying too.  Because every time they change it, I end up needing a pile of new cables I need to connect things.   I know USB-C is supposed to be the ultimate connector, but realistically there are many devices that still have the old ports, so now I need USB-C <-> USB-C cables, but also USB-C <-> USB-A cables, and probably also USB-C <-> microA because there's still lots of portable devices using that

[+OLD CS1]

8 hours ago, zzip said:

I'm sure they planned it,  but I don't think you could even comfortably use a low capacity drive at USB 1.x speeds.

The original 100MB Zip Drives are fine on USB1.1, and are not only just as fast as the parallel port models, but do not cause the computer to freeze up during data transfers.  For the time, at least for me, USB1.1 and the available external drives were quite well matched.  Though we always wanted faster and better.

 

I feel your pain on the port and cable problem.  I keep a collection of adapters and cables.  What really grinds my gears is how many USB cables will charge but will not carry data and are not marked as such.

[leech]

9 hours ago, zzip said:

I'm sure they planned it,  but I don't think you could even comfortably use a low capacity drive at USB 1.x speeds.      USB 2.0 dramatically increased the speed from 12 to 480Mbps   

 

The connector changes are annoying too.  Because every time they change it, I end up needing a pile of new cables I need to connect things.   I know USB-C is supposed to be the ultimate connector, but realistically there are many devices that still have the old ports, so now I need USB-C <-> USB-C cables, but also USB-C <-> USB-A cables, and probably also USB-C <-> microA because there's still lots of portable devices using that

Tell me about it... I recently got an m1 macbook, and now have so many USB-A -> USB-C adapters, because I keep misplacing them.  Started buying flash drives that have both on them... 

1 hour ago, OLD CS1 said:

The original 100MB Zip Drives are fine on USB1.1, and are not only just as fast as the parallel port models, but do not cause the computer to freeze up during data transfers.  For the time, at least for me, USB1.1 and the available external drives were quite well matched.  Though we always wanted faster and better.

 

I feel your pain on the port and cable problem.  I keep a collection of adapters and cables.  What really grinds my gears is how many USB cables will charge but will not carry data and are not marked as such.

Ha, is this due to lack of DMA on the parallel port?  I always wanted to try a Zip drive on an Amiga and Atari ST.  In theory they should work fine.  Granted I'd also like a SCSI Jaz drive for the Falcon/TT030...

[+OLD CS1]

37 minutes ago, leech said:

Ha, is this due to lack of DMA on the parallel port?  I always wanted to try a Zip drive on an Amiga and Atari ST.  In theory they should work fine.  Granted I'd also like a SCSI Jaz drive for the Falcon/TT030...

ECP uses DMA, and I suspect it was servicing the legacy ISA DMA which was causing the stuttering.  I have been using Zip drives with my Amiga (SCSI and IDE) since 1998, then I started using USB 250s and 750s when I got my Deneb USB card.  I have no idea how they work with the ST -- not my sandbox.

[wierd_w]

A good deal of the "Hogs the system" comes from the combination of "Single Core", and "CPU controlled IO".  This was true for really old IDE controllers, Floppy controllers, and transfers over serial and parallel ports.

 

By the time USB rolled around, Bus Mastering using the PCI chipset was a thing, and the CPU was not really involved in transfers. This was especially true for IDE controllers and IEEE1394 controllers (which actually had an exploit that targeted the latter's ability to directly scribble on memory). 

 

On SMP machines, even back then, (assuming a properly SMP aware OS), such stuttering/bogging-down didnt happen, even with CPU controlled IO, as one CPU could be servicing and the other could be free. (There were some hardware SMP boards back in the day, and IIRC, NT4 and pals could properly service them.)  Hyperthreading kinda-sorta alleviated this also, but was ... not the best solution.

 

 

 

 

[eightbit]

This is the board being used in this machine currently:

 

https://www.ultimateretro.net/en/motherboards/2607#downloads

 

Not my first pick, but I got it as new old stock for $60 so the deal was just too good to pass up. It is a very early Pentium motherboard so it does not support those lower voltage MMX processors. I did not realize that initially but whatever. I added a Pentium 200 to this (non-MMX) as I mentioned previously and it is working great. If I did want a CPU with MMX instructions I can always pop in a rare/expensive overdrive CPU, but I see no need.

 

The BIOS (while cool with its mouse driven menus) was severely outdated. It was on v1.01. From the website above it provides AMI's v1.10 which is a huge leap. I used Uniflash to back up the original BIOS (just in case) and flash v1.10. As with most things nowadays I had to use the Wayback Machine in order to obtain the Uniflash software:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20080610061758/http://www.uniflash.org/download.htm

 

Great tool! Once I saw it was compatible with this chipset and the BIOS chip type I knew I was set...and I was. Gone is the mouse driven BIOS with the neat themes, but at least now the BIOS has larger HDD support and a lot of options the previous did not, not to mention it is a normal traditional BIOS. The mouse driven thing was pretty but pretty lackluster in the options department.