Hello again /g/ and retro enthusiasts. This was my thread from

File: 20170731_183613.jpg (1021KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

1021KB, 2656x1494px

>>61667043

2/2

>>61667043
>>61667051
we don't need another fucking general for literally trash
fuck off

>>61667043
Electronics recycling general?

>>61667057

umadbro?

>>61667151
>>>/reddit/

>>61667057
>>61667094
>>61667163
Nice buttmad, fuck off to /v/.

File: um1494454623446.jpg (93KB, 379x336px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 379x336px

>>61667043
Is the left orange PCB a modem/sound card hybrid?

>>61667051
You're in the US, aren't you? Damn I need a hardware configurable sound card.

>>61667057
Pic related.

File: 20170731_185124.jpg (947KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

947KB, 2656x1494px

>>61667304

Yep. Was a common thing way back when. And yes, I'm in the US.

Pic related is some random ISA NICS.

>>61667043
Fuck yes!

File: IMG_0002o1newkeyb.jpg (2MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1500px

>>61667043
Nice!

I myself finally received the replacement keyboard for my Osborne 1 today.
After a whole day of figuring shit out I finally managed to write some bootable floppies for it too!

File: 20170731_185453.jpg (1MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2656x1494px

Not even sure what this is... old SCSI card I think.

>>61667330
Awesome, those 3Com Etherlink III's are literally worth their weight in gold. Keep onto them. Specially the one with the socket.

>>61667347
Pre-AT, ISA 8-bit floppy controller.

File: 20170731_185509.jpg (1MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2656x1494px

Cirrus Logic VLB video card.

File: 20170731_185800.jpg (896KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 2656x1494px

>>61667355

Thanks anon, learn something new every day!

Misc 30 and 72 pin RAM.

>>61667360
Nice nice VESA card!

>>61667347
That's the floppy controller out of an original IBM PC or XT. You can tell by the Beckman ceramic DIP resistor network. Almost all IBM cards had one of them.

>>61667383
Nice, picked them up from the load or had them previously?

Wait, you're the anon who posted the CueCat scanner on /retro/ a week or two ago?

>>61667415

These were from a previous load. Yes, I am the one that posted the cuecat.

More pics in a bit.

File: yes1493522464263.jpg (28KB, 348x425px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 348x425px

>>61667445
>More pics in a bit.
Comfy.

>>61667344
Hello gorgeous.

Tfw my parents sent my retro parts over the years to the Philippines

File: IMG_0001.jpg (2MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1500px

>>61667547
Hel... Oh, you mean the Osborne 1.

You don't want to know what I had to do to write floppies for it with a HD drive.

>>61667383
>no heatsink on the Kingston memory
got to be fake

File: 1497571280948s.jpg (2KB, 125x117px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x117px

>>61667567
Well.. I'm afraid I do wanna know

>>61667344
hi 8bit guy :D

File: 20170731_191150.jpg (1MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2656x1494px

>>61667355

Since you liked those you'll probably like these, though they are obviously newer.

>>61667663
saving the thumbnail

>>61667663
My HD drive writes much thinner tracks then a DD drive, because I was using DD floppies, those all already had data written on them with thick tracks, so when I wrote my image onto it with the HD drive, it just wrote into the middle of the DD track, obviously the result was corrupted data when the Osborne with it's also thick head tried to read them.
But I didn't have a bulk eraser, so I just took two neodymium magnets and wiped the DD disk a few times with them, after that I wrote the image onto the floppy again, and voila! Booted!

>>61667696
The are fine cards with good driver support, but ain't that special compared to the ISA Etherlink III's that work in 8-bit ISA slots and have a working packet driver for 8086/8088 instruction set.

File: 20170731_191040.jpg (822KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 2656x1494px

>>61667695
>>61667567

Wait... are you actually the 8 bit guy from youtube?

Pic related is pretty useless, but it was still packaged so I thought what the hell. Just bought it today at a thrift store actually.

>>61667567
Are you 8 bit guy O0O he's the only person on this planet with a working osbone computer

>>61667695
>>61667728
No, I was working on my own Osborne 1 way before 8-Bit guy had hes.

>>61667344
8bit guy???

>>61667736
>Are you 8 bit guy O0O he's the only person on this planet with a working osbone computer
>osbone
kek

>only person on this planet with a working osborne* computer
>he doesn't know who Terry Stewart is

>>61667344
this is totally 8bit guy. I luv ya vids :3

File: 20170731_191947.jpg (476KB, 1494x2656px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1494x2656px

Just the case unfortunately, but will be restored someday. This thing is a tank.

>>61667781
I wanna fug that case

>>61667344
yoooo 8bit guy gets nice dubbs

>my niqqa

>>61667344
HOL LI FUK its 8-bit guy on /g/

>>61667805
>8-bit guy on /g/
he actually did browse /vr/

File: 20170731_192038.jpg (728KB, 1494x2656px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 1494x2656px

Fairly certain this is a PSU for a PC/AT, though I don't know what model.

>>61667721
How did you write it the second time?

>>61667781
>>61667840

Did you leave them out in the rain? The corrosion looks pretty bad.

>>61667859

That's how I got it.

>>61667840
Looks like an AT PSU to me, yep.

>>61667805
>8-bit guy
What, Trent Reznor's "8-bit guy"?

>>61667841
The same way as the first time. ImageDisk.
Just that now the DD floppy was clean(er) after wiping it physically with a magnet.

>>61667344
DOO BEE DOO BIT BOY 7

>>61667901
Right. Thanks, have a great time with your beauty.

>>61667952
I sure will, thanks anon.

File: 20170731_195211.jpg (919KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 2656x1494px

Yay, I was hoping I'd come across this. It's one of my more interesting pieces (well, to me anyways). It's called a DECTalk. I got it from a blind man - it synthesized speech so blind people could use computers way back in the day. He told me it cost him $3,000 when he bought it.

Looks like something got into the bag and gummed it up. Pisses me off, dammit.

>>61668010
Why not IPA the fuck out of it?

>>61668010
Oh! My! God!
Coolios!

Quick, contact cleaner and isopropyl alcohol.

>>61668025
India pale ale?

>>61668041
If you want to drink some before washing the board with isopropyl alcohol, sure. I won't judge.

>>61668055
k, tnx

File: 20170731_195106.jpg (1MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2656x1494px

>>61668025
>>61668029

Here's another pic while I'm cleaning

File: IMG_0001.jpg (146KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 500x375px

>>61668144
Nifty! I recently got one of those with a laptop I acquired, the port pops out when pushed, delegate as fuck but cool idea.

File: XEM5600.jpg (26KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x500px

>>61668208

I remember those. I found that people were apt to break the damn things off. It became such a problem where I worked we switched everyone to pic related. I don't have any of these, just a stock photo.

>>61668274
Yeah, I'm amazed this one still works, because the guy I got the laptop from used it for years (shared with his family).

File: d.jpg (411KB, 1461x950px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1461x950px

i got a new gpu

>>61668358
HOLY SHIT
Quakes gonna fucking fly with it at 800x600.

File: 20170731_194441.jpg (1MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2656x1494px

Couple AGP cards when clear sides & case modding was starting to be a thing. Personally love the heatsink on the MSI.

>>61668358

Love it.

>>61668392
>build a heatsink in the shape of your logo
>design it so it's upside down with the fancy angle cut facing the motherboard

File: 20170731_191717.jpg (958KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

958KB, 2656x1494px

Late 90s - early 2000's Thinkpad keyboards. Literally have like 30-40 of these.

File: ddd.jpg (370KB, 1330x1134px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1330x1134px

>>61668375

File: 20170731_192108.jpg (343KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 2656x1494px

Random p3 IBM.

>>61667781
Oh man, I had that exact model, P5-90, the 90MHz Pentium model. Came with Win 3.11 but I upgraded mine to 95 when that came out. You could probably kill a man with that case. Pre-ATX though so probably a pain to put anything modern in.

File: 1496250114127.jpg (759KB, 1390x1140px) Image search: [Google]

759KB, 1390x1140px

You guys do realize this is a BLUE BOARD?

Almost got fired for watching bare PCBs are work.

File: 1496715620601.jpg (111KB, 364x514px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 364x514px

>>61667695
>>61667750
>>61667770
>>61667805
>>61667787
>>61667913

>>61668473
Looks like you have a spider living in there.

File: 20170731_191821.jpg (720KB, 1494x2656px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 1494x2656px

This monster came to me in a lot. I have no idea if it works but it did come with a full array of Linear Tapes which appear to be in perfect shape.

File: 20170731_191901.jpg (471KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 2656x1494px

Various hotswap carriages. I don't think this is really a thing anymore. I never see it.

File: roland rap-10.jpg (912KB, 2280x1542px) Image search: [Google]

912KB, 2280x1542px

Oh hi.

>>61668666
Are those SCSI drives, Lucifer?

>>61668699
I came.
Also hi.

File: iz4NOlU.png (63KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 2000x1500px

So, i found at work a 2 button IBM mouse, i think it's from 1988 as it came with a PS/1, it's just in a box where no one control (except me), should i go full nigger and take it to my home? I have no real use for it (the plug is PS/2) except nostalgia.

>>61668762
Just ask, they probably don't give a fuck?

>>61668427
Got one for a G40 by any chance?

Only has two screws, and a single brass post. Ive been looking for one to keep around as a backup.

>>61668841

Looks like all the ones I have have 2+ brass posts. Sorry anon.

File: Webp.net-compress-image (4).jpg (1MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2656x1494px

MATROX 618-02, circa 1996.

File: outcga_002.png (11KB, 640x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 640x300px

>>61669061
>MGA
>naming your new hip graphics card after (then already) decade old graphics standard

Is it just my bad eyesight, or do a lot of these cards look wet, or have water damage?

>>61669140
it's the high res pictures and flash, rest is normal oxidation

File: Webp.net-compress-image (5).jpg (518KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 2656x1494px

2 more beige beauties I forgot about with the case everyone had. I *think* these are 1st gen Athlons.

Note: I do clean them when I restore them.

>>61669158
>Webp.net-compress-image
>compress
sure is

>>61668010
What are those checkerboard lookking things? Are they functionless?

>>61669158
Nice big cases.
Love the 5.25" floppy drives with the 3.5" drive design and the Laser Disk drives.

>>61669158

whoa I dunno wtf happened with that pic....

>>61669140

Nothing is wet, I'm taking these pics with a Galaxy Note 4. 16 MP. I'm having to compress them to upload them because of 4chans file size limits. But yeah, you will notice some oxidation on some of this stuff. A lot of it comes out of attics and basements, so definitely not the best storage conditions.

>>61669182
Mostly functionless, could be explained as very specific shielding

>>61669185
Now that's a SCSI controller

>>61669173
Looks like a crime scene photo

File: 20170731_211618.jpg (3MB, 2988x5312px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2988x5312px

I fixed it.

>>61669193
>Nothing is wet
Talk about yourself. I'm moist as fuck, keep posting.

>>61669158
>>61669198
>>61669229
Someone forcefully ripped out a CD-ROM drive, you can see the blood dripping from the hole.

>>61669182
In IC manufacture, they're used to keep the proportion of metal coverage approximately equal over the whole chip area, which is probably to assist continuous processing by not exhausting the etchant in any one spot leading to uneven etching. Perhaps their board fab also ran a continuous process.

>>61669244
it's about as much blood if someone got their finger in an old delta fan while it's on.

>>61669273
that's only the marks left where it flew the heaviest, the rest got washed off by the tears

>>61669195
rn my ISA EPROM programmer is buried and I'm lazy, but I'll post it if this bread is still fresh when I find it.

File: Webp.net-compress-image (6).jpg (1MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2656x1494px

Slot P3's. 2 450's and a 600.

>that price tag

>>61669158
>>61669193
It's like it flipped to landscape mode but forgot to flip the actual photo.

File: Webp.net-compress-image (7).jpg (2MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2656x1494px

p2's. both 400s. different gens.

>>61669312
That's bargain bin pricing for those chips.

>>61669092
They're leafs. It was probably called something completely different in french.

>>61669505
It's joke.

File: Webp.net-compress-image (8).jpg (651KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 2656x1494px

All kinds of Thinkpads in various states of repair/restoration. Mostly "A", "R", and "T" models.

>>61669553
Listen, you can't just stack up a bunch of broken computers and call it art.

>>61669579

LMAO

File: 20170729_142916.jpg (3MB, 2988x5312px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2988x5312px

Ok guys last pic of the night and it's a repeat of what I found over the weekend. It doesn't fire up. Probably a bad PSU.

I'm debating... do I scrounge for parts and attempt to restore it to original condition, or turn it into a custom sleeper machine. I haven't decided yet. Leave me your thoughts, I'll check in the AM... maybe later tonight if I can't sleep.

>>61669817
she's a beauty.

File: DSC_0505.jpg (2MB, 4280x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4280x3000px

>>61669817

>>61669821
Good night, OP. Nice thread.
Restore if it's just the PSU.

>>61669817
>CD
>5 1/2
>3.25
>zip
Ultimate Dos machine

File: DSC_0512.jpg (4MB, 3000x4496px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3000x4496px

>>61669833
thanx dude :).

File: guts.jpg (314KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 900x1200px

>>61669821
>turn it into a custom sleeper machine

You are not going to enjoy those clearances.

>>61669866
Needs a modem for shits and giggles.

>>61670033
>Needs a modem for shits and giggles.
Just get an external one.

He did a follow up video on the IBM portable since anon other day was moaning about there not being a follow up video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M6Vmj61Sb8

>>61670077
is that a /g/ guy?

>>61670087
unlikely

File: 1483078004938.jpg (201KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 600x600px

>come to /g/ after being gone a few months
>see this thread and remember the retro threads from about a year ago
>open thread hoping to possibly discuss early 8 bit home computer processors with some other anons
>thread has very few pictures of actual assembled hardware, let alone actual assembled hardware in working condition
>anons posting pictures of fucking slot 1 Pentium IIIs, piles of random mismatched RAM, PCI cards, Thinkpads from the 2000s in non working condition, and other stupid shit that's less than 20 years old
>some anons talking about the fucking cuecat as if it's "retro"
>anon with an old floppy controller can't even tell it's a floppy controller and thinks it's a SCSI card
What the fuck happened? Is everyone here underage?

>>61670181
start here >>61632364 for context. These are all rescued from a horder and are going to be restored.

>>61670181
Everyone with a brain moved to another chan. This place exists to be /v/'s tech support, argue about dumb shit, and a place for marketers to shill even more dumb shit.

>>61670077
About fucking time.

>>61670087
It's a tranny so you wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.

>>61667043
>those Packard Hell stickers trying to hide the Aztech logos

>>61670181

You are just one salty bitch aren't you. News flash: not everyone was born in 1950. People who were born in the 80s grew up with this shit and enjoy reminiscing. Go be a cunt somewhere else.

File: 1493758677489.png (25KB, 669x514px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 669x514px

>>61668699
You are one LUCKY son of a nigger.

>>61670308
>People who were born in the 80s grew up with this shit and enjoy reminiscing
People born in the 80s grew up with shit that's less than 20 years old and that I was still encountering other people using up until just over 10 years ago?

>>61669092
that was MDA though

>>61670409

Yes. Can you even math?

Someone born in 1980 would be 37 now. Pentiums and p2's populated their teenage years. 1985? P3s and athlons, and they'd also be in their 30s now. Face it, there's a whole new era of what is considered "retro".

Maybe you should just enjoy the fact that there's a new generation of people who enjoy older hardware instead of being a geriatric prick.

>>61670409
If they were born in the 80s it's unlikely they were making their best memories while still infants.

>>61670512
>1985? P3s and athlons
Well then, better start including the Xbox and discussion of Halo on /vr/ then. Hell, if you want to stretch it and go with 1989 you could even include the Xbox 360, PS3, and the Wii.

File: 1483682399301.png (613KB, 1092x791px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 1092x791px

>>61670181
>early 8 bit home computer processors
Why the fuck would I want to discuss boring mass-market shit that anyone serious about this hobby already has by the boatload? 8-bits are gutless, dull as hell and they made them by the fucking millions.

I'd rather see this guy's fresh haul and pick through the good shit than circle jerk about your yellowed 64 and the shitty games you play on it every other month while you nostalgia-blog.

Fuck off to >>>/vr/ with the rest of the insufferably whiny, autistic faggots that made last year's retro threads so shit.

File: original.jpg (261KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1600x900px

>>61670181
here is something from your early adult life, does it make you feel better now?

File: cern-computer-centre-1998-hppa.jpg (42KB, 561x348px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 561x348px

>>61670662
That gamertard poser wouldn't know a real computer even if it cock-slapped him across the face, don't insult good systems like that.

File: core-memory-16x14-a.jpg (272KB, 2752x2292px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 2752x2292px

>>61670682
idk, he seems to think anything newer than a 486 isn't retro. On a side note, I've always loved how core memory looks. Is it true they still use them on space crafts because of how naturally resistant it is to radiation

File: BAE750.jpg (86KB, 550x378px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 550x378px

>>61670726
Don't think so anymore, everything I've bothered to look at is 100% rad-hardened ICs and I haven't heard of core going into anything new.

But it's not like I've got my finger on the pulse of the spaceflight control systems industry. Maybe there's a few special cases out there somewhere, as unlikely as it sounds to me. Core would probably be expensive as hell to make nowadays.

>>61670364
IKR
I put it into my P133 DOS box and I feel like I need to change my shorts after playing Tyrian and Dune2 with it.

File: rad750-bae-systems.jpg (1MB, 2548x1992px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2548x1992px

>>61670773
I found a picture that isn't shit, might as well post it.

>>61670813
Fuck that is sexy.

File: HP-HP9000-310-Workstation_11.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

>tfw my 9000 is probably arriving in the mail tomorrow but it will still be useless because I can't find a good 9133 or 9153 for it that isn't listed for half a kidney and non-functional

>>61667043
retro stuff only makes me remember... how slow computers were back in the day, and how fast they are now

File: rs6000-catia.jpg (354KB, 812x697px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 812x697px

>>61671376
It's lame to think of it that way, but it's not wrong.
Until about the 2000s that shit was visibly limited even in its time, either in storage capacity or raw hardware capability. It was less responsive, harder to communicate between systems easily, and generally less convenient.

But the shit was still worth thousands of dollars to someone. It did its job, it was built well, it generally looked great while it did it. In the end, any of this stuff still does math way faster than any of us ever will.

>>61668454
>1600x1200
>superior to "Full HD"
>was common in early 90s

>>61668392
Wow, I do love that heatsink. Definitely a unique video card.

>>61670800
https://youtu.be/HYybSQZ_9Yo?t=162

Jesus you aren't kidding.

>>61671590
it wasn't hard to do it as long as you had the memory, so why gimp it for users who want to run it with a high-end display?
the rage wasn't even from the early '90s anyway, 16x12 wasn't really outlandish by 1996-1997 if you had enough money for it

File: SX480_Compare.jpg (244KB, 439x545px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 439x545px

>All these awesomely mid-late 90s beige cases
>meanwhile the best I can get is enlight endura or door-less chieftec dragon
Man it's sucks to be me.

File: IMG_0672.jpg (1MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1936px

>>61667043
Love finding old parts in boxes.

Have no idea what the graphics card is though, called a jeronimo pro and has two 3dlabs chips on the board.

>>61669092
I can barely tell what's going on, but it still looks like it'd be fun to play. The monochromatic phosphor looks cool.

File: G4s.png (380KB, 815x612px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 815x612px

>>61671686
>tfw i live in the middle of nowhere so buying anything old is fucking expensive because of either shit ****RARE**** sellers or shipping
I have an enlight (7237) case, Its not too bad and its even ATX so i can still use it.
That transparent blue case is fucking amazing looking though.

Have a photo of my G4s because why the fuck not. It wont fucking die and that is good.

>>61670201
This is true.

>>61670181
Find a better chan. /g/ is officially full of /v/tier underage.

>>61671655
thanks i had a hard time finding exactly when 1600x1200 was released and when it became easy to get

>>61671751
One day. One fucking day I'll find a G4 mac without insane pricetag (because muh macintosh professional use only NOLOWBALLERSIKNOWWHATIUGH).

>>61671835
i got a dual 1.42GHz G4 MDD, with 2gm ram and radeon 9000, at a thrift store for 10$. had a bad PSU

>>61671751
Oh, and I forgot to say, really nice setup.

>>61671835

What's the obsession with G4's? I have a dual-cpu G5 mac just sitting in my garage collecting dust. Got it for free.

>>61671874
good ratio of performance to power usage
also, extremely nice cases

g5s were a step back in case design
and g5s were a step back in power efficiency

>>61671871
Lucky fuck.
My dual 450 gigabit is still cooler.
I wish I could find a cheap CPU upgrade card though.

>>61671924
you can mod digital audio cards to work. i think you can also maybe mod some quicksilver cards

you can also overclock your bus to 120mhz

>>61671942
Ill look into it (aka, I'll forget about it within a week). Right now its a period "correct" rig with 512mb and a rage 128pro so it is fine.

>>61671983
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/sawtooth_bus_overclock/sawtooth_bus_overclock.html

>>61671983
>>61672014
fyi gigabit is same as sawtooth for the bus overclock. but youll need to change the multiplier on your cpu card or else your dual 450 will try to run at 540, which is probably expecting a bit much out of it. but setting it to run at 480 would be a nice modest overclock

or you could find a dual 533 DA CPU and run it at 540

>>61671983
>>61672014

>Any Apple OEM processor faster than 533MHz (installed in a Sawtooth) requires the CD ATA connector to be removed, modification to the heatsink or modification to the case to use the newer heatsink, and 12V to be spliced to one of the mount points of the new processor. That is why I chose the 533MHz processor.

so 533mhz are the fastest Apple OEM cards that will easily fit

>>61671376
It's true - i've been thinking of building a socket7 pc for muh nostalgia, but then remember how frustrated i was from still using a pentium 1 in 2001...

>>61670308
>People who were born in the 80s grew up with this shit and enjoy reminiscing. Go be a cunt somewhere else.
Fuck no, that would be Amigas, Ataris, Macintoshes, other home micros and PC/XT-AT's. Not Pentium II's and gaymer cases.

>>61670610
>serious about this hobby already has by the boatload?
>8-bits are gutless, dull as hell and they made them by the fucking millions.
Ahah, gr8 b8 m8

File: 1500248060615.jpg (113KB, 344x375px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 344x375px

>>61670505
MDA? Monochrome Display Adapter that only displays text? Isn't it weird that it's actually showing graphics then? Something a MGA, Monochrome Graphics Adapter would do, like the Hercules.

>>61674573
>Fuck no, that would be Amigas, Ataris, Macintoshes, other home micros and PC/XT-AT's. Not Pentium II's and gaymer cases.
I want to smash your face with my mid 90s mitsumi classic keyboard.

>>61671590
>>61671770
>common in early 90s
It was nowhere _common_ in the early 90's, don't be an idiot. At the turn of the century, sure, but even in the mid-90's it was only high end.

>>61671835
I literary had several for sale, fully working, some where double processor. Nobody wanted that shit for even 20€. That's also the usual price for them here, G5's are like 40€.

>>61671892
Both the G4 and G5 where pretty inefficient already when compared to same price range Intel chips of the time.

>>61674704
It's okay kid, you can't know everything that came before you.

>>61671376
>>61671536
What the fuck are you guys talking about? They where always _fast_.

>It was less responsive
Stop running Windows XP on a machine from 1996 then.

>harder to communicate between systems easily
Seriously? Ethernet and Serial have been a thing for decades.

>and generally less convenient
Most systems where actually easier to use and less cluttered, but whatever.

>>61671536
>It was less responsive
u wot m8
my c64 is still more responsive than a less than 2 year old workstation build

>>61667057
>>61667094
I genuinely want to know what do people like who hate old hardware this much?

Is it kinda like the dumb blonde who likes/knows jewelry that throws the History book in History class and laughs that who needs this old shit?

>>61674744
not talkin about price efficiency.
g4s were current when pentium ds were around, the least power efficient cpu ever

>>61675948
G4 came out in '99.
Also yes, you can compare it to a shitty Intel chip and it will seem less efficient, but even the power hog NetBurst Pentium 4's at the time (2000) where more efficient.

>>61675326
drivers were buggy as hell on win9x, I don't count the number of times I had to do a clean install. ip masquerading (NAT precursor) was only available on linux, hardware was way more expensive, a good 17" crt costed an arm, 10 base 2 networking was horrible to setup, a terminator would suddenly fail and break the network, internet was horribly expensive if you didn't live in a country with free local calls and the list goes on forever. the machines and OS we have today are amazing and do everything 100x better than 90's stuff.

>>61677345
you're literally comparing some wintel shit from a time wintel didn't mean shit

>>61677345
>drivers were buggy as hell on win9x
No more than they are today, try some AMD drivers with Windows 10 and enjoy. You just had to know your shit better and not mix VxD and WDM drivers everywhere.

>I don't count the number of times I had to do a clean install.
Well, that's you, isn't it? A retard these days also reinstalls Windows several times.

>ip masquerading (NAT precursor) was only available on linux
This is relevant how when other ways existed that where common? Also no, not only on Linux.

>hardware was way more expensive,
No? A proper home multimedia machine costed way less than a good machine today, Amiga or Atari ST for example.

>good 17" crt costed an arm
A good IPS panels does also. You can get shitty TFT ones for $300 sure, that's cheap.

>10 base 2 networking was horrible to setup
Not really, it was a solid network not for home use, you don't need 10BASE-2 to play in multiplayer with a friend or share files though.
10BASE-T was a thing since the 80's also if you wanted, it just wasn't as standardised but widely available.

>a terminator would suddenly fail and break the network
Step up your game then. Literary never happened to me.

>internet was horribly expensive if you didn't live in a country with free local calls and the list goes on forever
Internet is still horribly expensive if you happen to live in the "wrong" court.

>the machines and OS we have today are amazing and do everything 100x better than 90's stuff.
That's the point, 90's machines also did everything 100x better then 70's ones.
There was no "better", it was the top notch, top quality, top speed your technology could have.
There isn't a way to say it's better now, because it's always been as good as it can be. Saying out shit is better today than it was a decade ago, that's just normal technological progress.

Windows was the only horrible memory. There was no hanging systems or continuous crashes with any other system than Windows.
Checkmate atheists.

>>61677312
>p4s were more efficient than g4s

yeah no

>>61677652
Efficiency is calculated by performance and power draw.
A 50W chip that scores 100% isn't as efficient as a 100W chip that scores 201%.

The clock isn't a definitive measurement, but at gaps like this, there was a 1.4GHz P4 when the G4 was still at 500MHz? There's no question. Specially when the P4 never exceeded twice the power requirements of the G4.

>>61674624
that's HGC you dipshit

>>61677994
No. HGC is literary short for Hercules Graphics Card.
Hercules Graphics Card is a MGA (Monochrome Graphics Adapter) card.

The other being MDA, that's just a display adapter, literary an adapter to connect a display to show characters from a character ROM, like having an integrated text terminal, not much different from physical teletypes.

So remember:
MDA is text only graphics.
MGA is text plus some graphics capabilities, like Hercules/HGC.

File: mda.jpg (1MB, 2848x1011px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2848x1011px

>>61677994
This is a MDA card.

File: hcg.png (2MB, 1920x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1000px

>>61677994
This is a HGC card.
(MDA+Graphics with the Hercules name, still commonly identified by programs as MGA.)

File: mga.jpg (164KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1280x960px

>>61677994
This is a MGA card.
(Exactly the same as a Hercules card, MDA+Graphics, but without the Hercules name.)

>>61678146
this isn't the /vr/ gamer shit threads dude we don't need the trivia, I've got a ton of MDA systems already and am well aware of their limitations, but I've rarely come across HGC-compatible products that are branded as or even referred to as "MGA" cards, it just wasn't a common term, since most vendors probably wanted to associate their products with the Hercules name to dispel any doubts about compatibility

why do we even give a shit anyway? who cares if Matrox recycled an irrelevant acronym from the '80s to describe their own product?

>>61678507
>this isn't the /vr/ gamer shit threads dude we don't need the trivia
Indeed it isn't. We actually talk about real shit and don't call things by their wrong name.
You should go to /vr/ if you can't take your shit right.

>or even referred to as "MGA" cards, it just wasn't a common term
Pretty much all original software refers to them as MGA.
Games refer to it as "Hercules" directly.

>since most vendors probably wanted to associate their products with the Hercules name to dispel any doubts about compatibility
I own several MGA cards and one original Hercules card. None of the MGA cards has anything that says "Hercules", so no.

The comparability literary was MGA, system information utilities from the 80's even list the cards as "MDA+MGA compatible".

>who cares if Matrox recycled an irrelevant acronym from the '80s to describe their own product?
See >>61669512

>>61678507
>I've got a ton of MDA systems already
sad to see them go to waste like that
oh well, wintel shit for wintel tards

>>61674600
I'm not baiting, I've probably acquired around 25-30 8-bits since I started doing this and I don't really find them exciting at all. I admire their simplicity, value and historical context, but without any nostalgic connection to them I don't have an easy time seeing past their slowness, generally lackluster mass storage options, the similar ways in which they all generally operate, their primitive languages and operating systems, and their hardware that generally isn't all that interesting aside from the occasional proprietary chipset or odd-ball sound/video chips.

There are people that of course don't feel this way and there's nothing wrong with liking them or wanting to talk about them, I may even join in, but overall I'm not really that into them and autistic hipster faggots who throw a tantrum when people want to discuss something else can go fuck themselves.

>>61678749
why do you even collect them if they are so boring? what do you do with them?

do you just collect them for no reason? go back to /vr/, you don't seem very hardware and software savvy

>>61675326
Storage was slow, Ethernet was hardly the norm outside of high-end systems, and they certainly weren't easier to use on average. You're letting nostalgia and your modern-day usage of these systems cloud your judgement, and there's no reason to. Of course they're less powerful and practical in the end, what difference does accepting it make? People still bought them and enjoyed them, and then they upgraded to the next best thing that for them was indeed better, faster and generally more capable.

>>61678827
>You're letting nostalgia and your modern-day usage of these systems cloud your judgement
No, you're just being a dumbass because you where still in grade school at the time (whatever timeframe we are talking about, 80's/90's?) and didn't know shit, you didn't get in contact with computers as much back then and didn't know about them as much, you didn't already have a room full of tech and intimate knowledge of your hardware. Your knowledge from the time is probably mostly from normies who didn't know better.

>faster
You see, they weren't faster, they where more capable, that would be the right thing to say.

>>61677366
>thread filled with wintel hardware
>b-but wintel didn't mean shit
kys retard, amiga, atari were dead come early 90's, mac was already trash

>>61677473
no point in replying, you're just dumb and ignorant

>>61667829
story?

>>61678827
>Storage was slow
I didn't need 600MB/s R/W speeds when the average file size was 100 times smaller

>Ethernet was hardly the norm outside of high-end systems
I didn't need ethernet when there wasn't almost any content on the net and that what I could get I was fine with dial-up
I didn't need ethernet to play Doom, I already had an serial cable (I already had 10base-t ethernet cable machine though at the time)

>>61678916
>it wasn't slow, you stupid NORMIES just didn't know better!
Yeah, that definitely sounds like nostalgic delusion to me, or you're just overly defensive and trying way too hard.

There are plenty of people who worked with the hardware on an intimate level that still think it was shit compared to what we have now and would laugh at you for saying such a thing.

>>61678953
>kys retard, amiga, atari were dead come early 90's, mac was already trash
Amiga was a thing to the mid 90's, Macintoshes best years where in the mid 90's.

I know this is bait, it's just hilarious.

>>61678998
not him, but the real hayday of the mac were in the 80's and early 90's

>>61678978
>but I didn't need it!
That's fine, but what does it prove? You put up with slow shit because that's all you had, that doesn't make it fast.

>>61678981
>>it wasn't slow, you stupid NORMIES just didn't know better!
I didn't say that.

>Yeah, that definitely sounds like nostalgic delusion to me, or you're just overly defensive and trying way too hard.
No, you just prove my point, you didn't deal with "normies" that would hit their monitor because they fucked up their system beyond belief. Then bitch about it being slow and useless as fuck.

>There are plenty of people who worked with the hardware on an intimate level that still think it was shit compared to what we have now and would laugh at you for saying such a thing.
Ok. I don't think actual people who know their stuff say shit about it though without being ironic.

>>61678998
>Amiga was a thing to the mid 90's
only to retards like you who couldn't move on, also high end amiga were expensive as hell
>Macintoshes best years where in the mid 90's.
found the macfag, go back to playing marathon and fuck off

>>61677737
a 1ghz g4 would be faster than a 1.8ghz p4 while using waaaaaay less power

>>61679023
Explain. How was it slow.
When did I say it was slow?

I exactly just said it wasn't slow, it was perfectly viable for the things it did
You're confusing slow with people who still used dial-up in 2003 and bitched about it, when most people where perfectly fine with DSL already and that's what web pages where optimized for

Keep em shitty arguments coming. You might actually realize something some day.

>>61679012
Not for the proper high end systems. In terms of marketing, probably.

>>61679052
>only to retards like you who couldn't move on, also high end amiga were expensive as hell
There was nothing wrong with it, it was a pretty damn great platform. Specially if you kept your hardware up to date. Amigas where still made to the late '97. Mid-90's was nothing. Also no, hardware wasn't that expensive at all compared to the rest of the market.

>found the macfag, go back to playing marathon and fuck off
Isn't this a retro thread? Don't we like all retro technology equally?
Also not an argument.

>>61667695
8 bit guy fucked his up pretty good with that retrobrite shit he does, the entire thing looks like a marble finish now lmao

>>61679054
except the 1ghz g4 was much newer than the 1.8ghz p4, when the 1ghz g4 was out, there where already better options with x86 instruction set
it was playing catchup

File: Screenshot_2017-08-01-20-13-25.png (2MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1920px

>>61668274
Actually i have one of these.
Pic of course related

>>61679106
so? were talking about why g4s are currently well regarded

>>61678827
>>61679023
what the fuck am I reading
so you say it was slow because it wasn't as fast as today even though it didn't need to be by a far shot?

>>61679128
because they are one of the last consumer PowerPC chips and for most PowerPC compatibility you would use it for, you don't even need a G5, even a G4 is a straight for most of the use they get
that's all

>>61679134
Not him but I think he's saying that it's not slow then as it is today because we expect more out of our computers. Back when operating systems only needed 16 megabytes of RAM, and all you really needed to do with them was word processing and basic HTML websites. Getting the work you required out of your computer back then was about the same as getting what you needed out of your computer today.

>>61678812
They're cheap, easy to come across and still nice to have examples of. You can still find fun things to do with them, they just aren't as fun to use as other systems for me, I keep them around to mess with occasionally and also for the historical context of them. I still like them, I just am not really fascinated by them, and they're not my focus.

>>61679186
exactly
but he obviously say it's was "slow" as he expected more in retrospect

>>61679248
I was a little too harsh
it's cool, glad youre having fun with em

>>61679027
>I didn't say that.
You did.
>No, you just prove my point, you didn't deal with "normies" that would hit their monitor because they fucked up their system beyond belief. Then bitch about it being slow and useless as fuck.
Who gives a shit about your retarded strawman you want to project on everyone who doesn't want to join your circlejerk?
>I don't think actual people who know their stuff say shit about it though without being ironic.
And they sure as fuck wouldn't want to go back to using it either.

>>61679248

This is how I am. My "glory days" were DOS-Win9x and that's the stuff that holds the most interest for me.

>>61679315
>You did.
Nope. I said you probably remember it from those people. But it's a valid point to add to my argument.

>Who gives a shit about your retarded strawman you want to project on everyone who doesn't want to join your circlejerk?
Not an argument. You just can't relate to it to understand it.

>And they sure as fuck wouldn't want to go back to using it either.
Well, that's not how progress works anyways.
Not to mention, most of those guys that I know personally, wouldn't even mind it as much as you make it seem, as it was far more interesting and fun time for them then computers now that do 4k video and flavor of the month FPS games.

>make thread about old hardware for fun
>people just like to shit on it
gotta love 4chan
I wonder how some of the /retro/ threads can be so much fun and civilized compared to this shitstorm

>>61679058
How do you explain it when it's right in front of you? Slow-ass, low capacity disk storage, glacial phone line connections, slow hardware on the consumer level gimped to cut costs, even the high-end shit was limited. Why do you think software was so much more efficient at that time? It wasn't because the programmers were better, it was because the hardware was fucking garbage and they had to be. It was "good for what it did" because it didn't do much to begin with. How hard is this to understand?
>>61679373
>Nope. I said you probably remember it from those people. But it's a valid point to add to my argument.
I remember it from experience, from reading, from understanding the reality that even the highest-end system was still considered limited for a long time. But you're right, "capability" is a better angle than "speed" when it comes to this.
>Not an argument. You just can't relate to it to understand it.
Neither was that blatant fallacy, you admitted it yourself.
>Not to mention, most of those guys that I know personally, wouldn't even mind it as much as you make it seem, as it was far more interesting and fun time for them then computers now that do 4k video and flavor of the month FPS games.
It was positive for them because it was the peak of their career and it was where they had their best memories, not because of the computers themselves.
>computers now that do 4k video and flavor of the month FPS games.
Or they can do the same job as the "interesting and fun" stuff thousands of times faster, be more reliable, multitask capably, be actually secure, the list goes on. The shitty gamer/normie strawmen garbage you keep appealing to is getting old.

>>61679592
>How do you explain it when it's right in front of you? Slow-ass, low capacity disk storage, glacial phone line connections, slow hardware on the consumer level gimped to cut costs, even the high-end shit was limited. Why do you think software was so much more efficient at that time? It wasn't because the programmers were better, it was because the hardware was fucking garbage and they had to be. It was "good for what it did" because it didn't do much to begin with. How hard is this to understand?

Your post is literary expecting that piece of hardware to be as capable as todays. You're literally looking at it from retrospect. Not like >>61679186 said but exactly like what was said here >>61679261

>>61679592
>It was positive for them because it was the peak of their career and it was where they had their best memories, not because of the computers themselves.
No, you really can't intimately know a modern system fully to the transistor level.
Those people liked just that, you're trying to force people onto things they would not like.

>Or they can do the same job as the "interesting and fun" stuff thousands of times faster, be more reliable, multitask capably, be actually secure, the list goes on.
But why? If it's not in their interest?
Obviously there are interesting and fun things to do in any decade with it's technology.

>The shitty gamer/normie strawmen garbage you keep appealing to is getting old.
That's pretty much how things are now.
Well, you don't seem very educated in the correct tech market. You either do that one thing you're educated to do, you don't touch a computer's mainboard even when you're working in software. This wasn't the case for most computer related jobs anywhere still two decades ago.

You pulled the "oldfag says it's shit" card.
Now eat your own words.

>>61679592
>It wasn't because the programmers were better, it was because the hardware was fucking garbage and they had to be.
>it wasn't because programmers where better it was because they were better
k

>>61679592
>Slow-ass, low capacity disk storage, glacial phone line connections, slow hardware on the consumer level gimped to cut costs, even the high-end shit was limited.
>But you're right, "capability" is a better angle than "speed" when it comes to this.
kek

>>61679689
Well to program for those systems you had to have the smarts, it wasn't like today that you have APIs for everything.
When your program sucked back then, crash the computer because it didn't have memory protection, not run at all because you overestimated the requirements and 90% of the people can't even run your software or run slow because you fucked up.

The hardware wasn't bad though.

>>61670181
not everyone's as smart as you are nor has the exact same definition of retro or interests for it

>>61670726
>he seems to think anything newer than a 486 isn't retro
pretty much anythings retro here that doesn't commonly fit in other threads on /g/

>>61679676
>falling for obvious bait

>>61679786
I really don't care.
This thread is a pretty shitposting fest anyways.

At least let's keep it interesting.

>>61679726
>t. retard

>>61679619
>Your post is literary expecting that piece of hardware to be as capable as todays.
Your posts are "literary" missing the point of the original post that started this shit show, that hardware today is faster than it was before, and it is. You keep making the point that the shit was "fast" for its day which isn't the point, the point was whether it was actually fast, as in, a 1:1 experience to a "fast" system today, which it certainly fucking isn't. A high-end system built in 1996 isn't going to be as quick on its feet with lethargic spinning rust, slower bus speeds and everything else than a high-end system in 2016, assuming both are running the software they were built to run.
>>61679676
You do realize that there were more people who "knew their shit" in that field than hobbyists, right? What are you even ranting about anymore?
>>61679726
>the hardware was shit and lacked a lot of features, but it wasn't bad though, because I'm nostalgic for it!
Who's laughing, again?

File: 1397015816807.jpg (99KB, 799x426px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 799x426px

>>61679726
Everytime I think of programming in the 90s I always think a Chris Sawyer.

File: 1497329500450.png (133KB, 319x272px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 319x272px

GUYS GUYS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I37U52gMFGA

>>61679829
>Your posts are "literary" missing the point of the original post that started this shit show, that hardware today is faster than it was before, and it is. You keep making the point that the shit was "fast" for its day which isn't the point, the point was whether it was actually fast, as in, a 1:1 experience to a "fast" system today, which it certainly fucking isn't. A high-end system built in 1996 isn't going to be as quick on its feet with lethargic spinning rust, slower bus speeds and everything else than a high-end system in 2016, assuming both are running the software they were built to run.

Nope.
Point was that those old systems where SLOW.
See your own post for actual answer that you agreed me on:
>>61679592
>But you're right, "capability" is a better angle than "speed" when it comes to this.

>>61679829
>You do realize that there were more people who "knew their shit" in that field than hobbyists, right? What are you even ranting about anymore?
This is relevant? Is this an argument for an argument's sake?

>>61679289
Me too, my dude. I just hate /vr/tists who bitch and cry when it isn't the only thing being talked about, I don't really mean to catch people who aren't retarded about it in the crossfire.
>>61679336
I've got a soft spot for it was well. I find '90s era systems to be a pretty nice compromise between the diversity, excitement and solid construction of the '80s and the modernity and convenience of the 2000s, with, sure, a bit of nostalgic appeal thrown in.

I'm one of those tryhards that loves enterprise™ shit from any period since I love the design and experience, but it's all cool, I'd really love to actually open up a museum some day so I'll take anything new and different I can get my hands on.

File: 000000.jpg (279KB, 1734x974px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1734x974px

>>61679841
sheeeeeeeeet niggah sheeeeet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1dnqKGuezo

>>61679829
>>the hardware was shit and lacked a lot of features, but it wasn't bad though, because I'm nostalgic for it!
Yes, the hardware wasn't bad. It did what you programmed it to do. Lacking features is not a problem if they aren't needed, you didn't need memory protection if your system wasn't multitasking, the spreadsheet program still ran as fine, if it crashed it wouldn't be any different with or without it.
No, I'm not particularly nostalgic, I never really understood the nostalgic viewpoint of technology as a hobby, probably I've always liked it instead of jumping on the train of "retro" because it's just "cool thing to do".

>Who's laughing, again?
I'm laughing of amusement.
What are you laughing about?

>>61679916
>I just hate /vr/tists who bitch and cry when it isn't the only thing being talked about
amen

it's nice to see people who aren't arguing just for the sake of argument

>>61679841
>Core i9
This upsets me more than it should

File: 1501332169521.gif (453KB, 499x315px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 499x315px

I'm actually pretty impressed by old computers, it's fascinating what they could do already for the time when technology has progressed this rapidly.

>>61679841
Wasn't this same case in a thread recently??

>>61679868
I agreed because capability goes hand-in-hand with speed, and speed is a part of that capability. It's a better angle to look at it, it doesn't mean that I agree that the systems were more responsive or generally faster with the software they were made to run compared to systems today occupying a similar market segment.
>>61679885
You're trying to pigeonhole "oldfags" into a specific subset of hobbyist/tinkerer to justify your shitty argument that is barely relevant to the main point anyway. There's more to computing than soldering shitty CPUs, Ahmed.
>>61679939
>Yes, the hardware wasn't bad. It did what you programmed it to do.
Which wasn't much, which was the point.
>Lacking features is not a problem if they aren't needed, you didn't need memory protection if your system wasn't multitasking, the spreadsheet program still ran as fine, if it crashed it wouldn't be any different with or without it.
It's funny how you're trying to spin this as if this was a good thing. You didn't "need" memory protection, rather than you just couldn't have it because it cost an arm and a fucking leg to implement, and had to survive on cheap, shitty hardware.
>No, I'm not particularly nostalgic
You're defending it like you are.

>>61680072
>You're trying to pigeonhole "oldfags" into a specific subset of hobbyist/tinkerer to justify your shitty argument that is barely relevant to the main point anyway. There's more to computing than soldering shitty CPUs, Ahmed.
I never said that. The actual people I was talking about where people who actually worked with machines like IBM mainframes in their time.

>>61680072
>It's funny how you're trying to spin this as if this was a good thing. You didn't "need" memory protection, rather than you just couldn't have it because it cost an arm and a fucking leg to implement, and had to survive on cheap, shitty hardware.
Well, you didn't. It ran, didn't it? A machine with 64kb of memory sure as hell didn't "need" memory protection. I don't even think there was even a concept of it.

>You're defending it like you are.
That's a simple way of looking at things. Why even discuss something valid if people will accuse you of just defending something per emotional basic?

>>61679419
There's only a couple regulars who are especially egregious faggots and they have to sleep sometime.

>>61680072
>I agreed because capability goes hand-in-hand with speed, and speed is a part of that capability. It's a better angle to look at it, it doesn't mean that I agree that the systems were more responsive or generally faster with the software they were made to run compared to systems today occupying a similar market segment.
Nope.
There is no "speed" if you don't compare it to something. Speed by definition, even in the physical world requires you to compare it to another object to determinate it.

Those machines where less capable, they didn't process real time 4k video or copy data over a fast fiber line. They processed animations that where a few kilobytes in size and send small segments of data at slow speeds over copper. They did so, very fast for their time.

>>61680132
>That's a simple way of looking at things. Why even discuss something valid if people will accuse you of just defending something per emotional basic?
topkek
>the earth is round
>no it isn't it's flat faggot
>nope, you see the earth is round because X, Z and Y
>ahaha, what, why are you defending the idea of the earth being round? you love galileo or something?

>>61680072
>the systems were more responsive or generally faster with the software they were made to run compared to systems today occupying a similar market segment
a Commodore 64 loading BASIC from ROM and games of cartridge was sure as hell faster than a modern machine doing equivalent things
even booting up and dialing-up to a BBS with a terminal cartridge and modem connected to one is faster than booting a modern machine and waiting for it to reconnect to the wifi network

>>61680291
So's a NES console. Because it too is a toy.

File: 1316230021519.jpg (48KB, 319x243px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 319x243px

>>61680215
You seem to be confusing facts with opinions now.

>>61680341
It is. You're absolutely right.
A NES is still far "faster" and responsive than any modern console aka "toy".

>>61680344
just a giggle m8
I didn't even really get into the post

>>61680357
>A NES is still far "faster" and responsive than any modern console aka "toy".
Good point, but it isn't as capable
different things

File: 1499056167329.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>61680391
At least the NES is still capable of still telling decent stories

>>61680428
Kekkerony

File: bethesda physics.webm (762KB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

762KB, 426x426px

>>61680428
Lost it when Dogmeat fell down.

>>61680083
>The actual people I was talking about where people who actually worked with machines like IBM mainframes in their time.
Those guys sure as fuck didn't understand their shit intimately "on a transistor level" either, do you even realize how complex they were by that time? They knew how to program them and use them, and they'd still laugh at you if you told them what they had was perfect and fine.
>>61680132
>It ran, didn't it?
That's what "good" hardware is to you? Of course you don't need memory protection on a gimped piece of shit that can't address any memory, that doesn't make it good.
>That's a simple way of looking at things. Why even discuss something valid if people will accuse you of just defending something per emotional basic?
Because all I've gotten back as a response is "IT WASN'T SLOW REEEEEEEEEEEE NORMIES IT WAS GOOD FOR ITS TIME" which sounds pretty emotional to me.
>>61680177
>There is no "speed" if you don't compare it to something. Speed by definition, even in the physical world requires you to compare it to another object to determinate it.
That's why I literally said in the same fucking sentence you quoted that I'm comparing the experience to today's systems occupying a similar market segment. That is, a shitty Celeron netbook is going to have a far smoother, faster experience than a Commodore 64 with a 1541 in almost every way on top of its improved capabilities.
> and send small segments of data at slow speeds over copper. They did so, very fast for their time.
"They sent something slowly very fast for their time" - do you understand how retarded this sounds?
"Very fast for their time" doesn't mean shit, we're not talking about the context, we're talking about which of two systems that occupied the same price/performance bracket in their time would offer a smoother, faster experience, and that will always go to the modern system.

>>61680485
>Because all I've gotten back as a response is "IT WASN'T SLOW REEEEEEEEEEEE NORMIES IT WAS GOOD FOR ITS TIME" which sounds pretty emotional to me.
>missing the point this bad

You're baiting, ain't ya?

>>61680485
thats some retarded shit son
aint gonna fall for it

>>61680485
>"They sent something slowly very fast for their time" - do you understand how retarded this sounds?
nope, it's perfectly sensible, if you literary fail to see that I hope you're just baiting

>and that will always go to the modern system.
but that wasn't the point, the point was that those machine where supposed to be slow for their time, which they obviously weren't

>>61680501
It's pretty fun watching these faggots rage when someone tells them the cheap toys from their childhood were slow.
>>61680515
Not an argument.

>>61680501
>>61680515
ignore him
this was a nice thread before autism got here

>>61680537
>It's pretty fun watching these faggots rage when someone tells them the cheap toys from their childhood were slow.
So it's bait and you do realize it's bullshit. Great.

>>61680535
>nope, it's perfectly sensible, if you literary fail to see that I hope you're just baiting
Do you have difficulty grasping the concept that people were okay with it because it was all they had?
>but that wasn't the point, the point was that those machine where supposed to be slow for their time, which they obviously weren't
Go back and read >>61671376 again
They were fast for their time, that doesn't make them actually fast.

>>61680537
>It's pretty fun watching these faggots rage when someone tells them the cheap toys from their childhood were slow.
I'm pretty amused by the pretend (or real) stupidity you're offering here.
Never once made you make me think that old hardware is slow. Because it's just not how it is.

>>61680569
Ahaha nice goalpost moving

>>61680569
You're moving the goalpost so much, now you actually agree with me?
Guess you got bored of shitposting?

>>61680485
>Those guys sure as fuck didn't understand their shit intimately "on a transistor level" either
um yes they did
proof, video of people who use to work on old ibm mainframes, working at a computer museum, fixing it.
https://youtu.be/PwftXqJu8hs?t=432

>>61680569
>They were fast for their time, that doesn't make them actually fast.
They where fast for their time and that's it.

You can argue 20 years from now that todays hardware is slow and that the hardware then is much faster. Just like you could 20 years ago.

>>61680611
Yup, those are the kinda guys. Weird how he has no consept of people like that.

>>61680611
This.

File: fuck you.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

m-muh sleeper
Apparently ltt is now nothing but sex puns only middle schoolers will laugh at and core i9s in decade old cases still covered in human slime.

>>61680569
>Do you have difficulty grasping the concept that people were okay with it because it was all they had?
I'm okay with my shitbox I use today, still wish it could do 8k VR and shit, maybe someday but right now I think my computer is pretty capable

>>61680673
kek

>>61680670
I have that antec case. It's housing my NAS.

File: full retard.png (479KB, 466x466px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 466x466px

>>61680556
So you have gone form expensive office equipment that was slow, to cheap toys from their childhood were slow.

>>61680721
k

>>61680611
The low-end 1401 wasn't a mainframe you retard, that would be the 7090. The computer users weren't typically the ones maintaining them either, IBM supplied teams to do that, which those guys were probably part of.

File: Captain Buttmad.png (20KB, 596x655px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 596x655px

>>61667057
>Pic related

>>61680721
Nonfunctional bait.
An XT was considered office equipment, a decade later it was pretty much a cheap toy in the same market.

Does not make sense.

>>61680759
>STOP IT
>the post
>+ I have no idea what I'm actually talking about
Why so >>61680770

File: Capture.png (57KB, 722x316px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 722x316px

>>61680759

>>61680721
>>61680759
You're losing it anon, quick, come up with some better shit, people are getting bored and start laughing at you already!

>>61680759
>1401 wasn't a mainframe
that's not what IBM says
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/mainframe/

>>61680788
>>61680807
Hey, dumbshits, mainframe isn't just "big computer with IBM on it", it's a specific class of computers that the 1401 is not a part of and never was. Just fucking look at the wiki article, it even distinguishes it with this line:
>Commonly used by small businesses as their primary data processing machines, the 1401 was also frequently used as an off-line peripheral controller for mainframe computers. In such installations, with an IBM 7090 for example, the mainframe computers used only magnetic tape for input-output. It was the 1401 that transferred input data from slow peripherals (such as the IBM 1402 Card Read-Punch) to tape, and transferred output data from tape to the card punch, the IBM 1403 Printer, or other peripherals. This allowed the mainframe's throughput to not be limited by the speed of a card reader or printer. (For more information, see Spooling.)
>>61680825
He's not me.
>>61680856
Well, whatever dumbass marketing jockey wrote that shit was wrong as well.

>>61680881
>Just look at Wiki!
>That's the only thing I know!
>I read everything on Wikipedia!
>Also it's not me who's shitposting, honest!
>You guys are all wrong! I'm right! Accept that! O-or...s-stop!
Do you want your safespace back? Maybe you should go to /vr/ or even better, reddit.

>>61680908
Kek

>>61680759
>>61680881
first
you are a dumbass, stick to wikipedia and keep your mouth shut
second
this is irrelevant, you said people like that didn't know their shit that well, obviously they do, now you nitpick on a word and move the goalpost

>>61680881
I think you've gone off the deep end of what the point of the video was.
>The actual people I was talking about where people who actually worked with machines like IBM mainframes in their time.
> like IBM mainframes
you can debate the term all you want, he wasn't specifically talking about mainframes, but the people in charge of maintaining computers of that era.

File: 1500069894524.jpg (71KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 960x640px

This thread is pretty great, I love autistic fucks who pretend to be something else when they actually never even had sex getting BTFO despite their best baiting attempts
Those autistists are the saddest of things

>>61680970
Just ignore him, obviously he's not being serious, the thread is done soon anyways.

>>61668392
I have one of those, it's an FX 5200 from MSI. Came with 256mb of ram. Don't now if it burnt because of my motherboard caps popping (An Athlon XP).

File: 1485024959757.jpg (77KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 960x639px

>>61680908
What are you crying about? You came back at me with the result of a Google search for "ibm mainframe" and I came back with a line from the same source Google got it from, or are you that other one who just came back with Reddit arrows?
>>61680945
>k-keep your mouth shut!!
Sorry, mom. Did I hit a nerve? I promise I won't trigger you in your safe space anymore!
Keep crying though, really. That's gotta be the worst shit I've ever heard on 4chan.
>>61680989
>getting BTFO despite their best baiting attempts
Please, I derailed the fucking thread, racked up a ton of (You)s and triggered you enough to make a weak-ass "I-I still won in the end and I'm not angry at all! believe me! you're a-autistic!" post with no prior provocation even after I stopped replying. I crashed this shit with no survivors, and I'd say I did a pretty good job. Have fun.
>>61680970
I'll be serious here, I do get the point of it, those guys did a great job on that restoration too. Saw a demo of that same system at the CHM and it was pretty fantastic.

>>61681151
>I post a laughing picture so that means I'm not butthurt!
that's the first sign of butthurt

>Please, I derailed the fucking thread, racked up a ton of (You)s and triggered you enough to make a weak-ass "I-I still won in the end and I'm not angry at all! believe me! you're a-autistic!" post with no prior provocation even after I stopped replying. I crashed this shit with no survivors, and I'd say I did a pretty good job. Have fun.
If you would look at the thread, everybody knew you where shitting, from the beginning, this isn't really an achievement when everyone's an actor

File: its_over_9000.jpg (77KB, 618x464px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 618x464px

>>61670726
God the number of resistors on that board.

File: a4be386e607995393685aa0d69034b94--sad-collection.jpg (10KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x236px

>>61681151
>>61681196
This is the sad part.
They think they derailed a dead thread that was kept alive with random bumps, while pretty much everyone else was making fun with or over him.

If you're regularly hitting the 1000 character per post limit and think it's not enough to get your point across, it's time to stop posting.

>>61679151
but if compatibility is your main concern youd still want the g5. if power efficiency is more important you go with the g4. this is exactly what my original post stated

>>61681219
Indeed, we have had this same shit several times in retro related thread. He always posts the "I successfully derailed the thread" post when the thread is almost dead. It's the same guy and he always goes the same way.

>>61681235
There is no point, it's just a shitfest, the more characters the better

>>61681151
Have another (You) anon
>you're a-autistic!
Shitting outside of /b/ with bait that everybody already know is bait is autistic, sorry

>>61681196
>we knew you were baiting all along, we just cried into our keyboards while we laughed at you!
If it makes you feel better, I guess. More (You)s for me and another circlejerk put to rest.
>>61681240
Half of the thread is you and a couple other retards crying walls of text up to the bump limit.
>>61681308
How many (You)s are we in now and you're still trying to call someone autistic on 4chan?

File: 1501447803272.gif (2MB, 390x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 390x300px

>>61681404
I was almost ready to post about the last thread we did this shit but went to the shower before and you already posted the money laughing picture. IIRC you used the exact same one last time.
It would have been pretty darn funny if you would have actually realized I know your stuff and we have done it before.

>>61681450
>money
monkey*

derp

>>61681404
>another circlejerk put to rest.
no your autist! you will never join our actual sekret criclejerk, keep dreamin

>>61681450
Don't think I've posted that one before, actually. If you're feeling really autistic about it you can go check the archives and compare the filenames. There's probably just more than one person who likes riling up the wannabe walking encyclopedias in these threads that get triggered as fuck at trivial shit.
>>61681481
But Justin ascended, why can't I???

>>61681517
>Don't think I've posted that one before, actually. If you're feeling really autistic about it you can go check the archives and compare the filenames. There's probably just more than one person who likes riling up the wannabe walking encyclopedias in these threads that get triggered as fuck at trivial shit.
What do you think I'm doing?
Maybe you didn't use that picture though, but it was similar.

>wannabe walking encyclopedias
That's harsh.
I'm actually just 24, I don't even "retro".
Most of the "fast" and "capable" shit was just overly repeated... shit.

File: 1500993167038.gif (469KB, 512x807px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 512x807px

seriously, how come sometimes there's 4-5 threads in a row for a week or two, someone should notice it, but it's without any shitposting and sometimes the whole thread is just shitposting from the start

>>61681558
>Most of the "fast" and "capable" shit was just overly repeated... shit.
I don't really disagree with that, honestly. It's still a lot of bullshit. I still think the leaps and bounds we've made in storage devices has really changed the game though, to be serious.
>>61681595
All it takes is one high-quality cringepost, and the whole thing goes to shit.

File: Enterprise250.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

>>61679916
>I'm one of those tryhards that loves enterprise™ shit from any period
Have an Enterprise 250 then. This thing's my homeserver.

>>61681404
>Half of the thread is you and a couple other retards crying walls of text up to the bump limit.
Ive replied on average like once every 6 hours, and approximately one other person has replied to me at the same rate

>>61682740
>This thing's my homeserver.
show us pls

File: Screenshot from 2017-08-02 01-16-46.png (40KB, 562x389px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 562x389px

>>61683040
Sure thing, pic related's a neofetch
And here's the video I made about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnUl_im3Vzw

>>61683229
Nice!

>And here's the video I made about it:
>implying we haven't seen it several times already

File: oy.jpg (4KB, 300x57px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x57px

>>61683294
Every time I shill myself on these threads I get two or three subscribers, so I posted it just in case.
>Captcha related