Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-98se
Subject: Re: Windows 98 on period accurate hardware
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:31:11 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <slrnusu9eb.6f9.anthk@localhost.localdomain>
References: <XnsB047BC0098A97itstech3000gmailcom@135.181.20.170> <upb3up$11l6e$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:31:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="179e5a30b9e24a9109a8c75a9b7678fa"; logging-data="377692"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/oyrgpqm6SmDhqj0pTCKUr"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9GJ9+IDg2bYXBpJbnm/iqDC5E7Q=
Xref: csiph.com alt.comp.os.windows-98se:10

On 2024-01-30, H1M3M <wipnoah@gmail.com> wrote:
> Renn Datravern wrote:
>> Is it correct to assume that a AMD Athlon/Athlon XP machine is
>> period accurate for Windows 98SE. I built a machine for someone that
>> uses a Athlon XP 1700+ with Windows 98SE because I didn't have any
>> spare hardware.
>> 
>> Would this be considered correctly period accurate? I usually try to
>> stick with Pentium II/III or AMD K6-II.
>> 
>
> I got an AMD Athlon XP clocked at 1.6 ghz back in 2001, months before
> Windows XP released. Everyone was still using Windows 98SE due to the
> Fiasco ME was, so i would say it was still accurate for the final part
> of the period.
>
> If I remember correctly...
>
> - AMX Athlong XP (K7) 1.6ghz
> - 256mb DDR1 ram
> - Radeon 7500 64MB

That was my setup except for Athlon 2000 (1666 mhz) and a Geforce 2 MX
instead of a Radeon 7500.