Discussion:
Running an old DOS program
(too old to reply)
Industrial One
2012-03-08 13:59:55 UTC
Permalink
I am not a Win98 user, I use XP, but I'm crossposting to the 98 group
because if there's anyone that would know about running old programs
on modern machines, I hope it to be you guys.

I was told that legacy DOS drivers are no longer made for modern mobos
as of like 5 years ago, but I constantly hear about nostalgic mofos
finding workarounds.

I do have a workaround which is DOSBox but it greatly slowed down the
performance. Indeed, only a weird motherfucker like me would go out my
way to emulate an EMULATOR and expect the FPS to be smooth. Its ironic
when I think that on the original platform it runs perfectly on 4 MHz
and my 3 GHz i7 can't run it in full FPS.

So yeah, any way to run my program natively or at least a way faster
than running it through DOSBox?
pedro
2012-03-08 15:01:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 05:59:55 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
Post by Industrial One
I am not a Win98 user, I use XP, but I'm crossposting to the 98 group
because if there's anyone that would know about running old programs
on modern machines, I hope it to be you guys.
I was told that legacy DOS drivers are no longer made for modern mobos
as of like 5 years ago, but I constantly hear about nostalgic mofos
finding workarounds.
I do have a workaround which is DOSBox but it greatly slowed down the
performance. Indeed, only a weird motherfucker like me would go out my
way to emulate an EMULATOR and expect the FPS to be smooth. Its ironic
when I think that on the original platform it runs perfectly on 4 MHz
and my 3 GHz i7 can't run it in full FPS.
Welcome to the world of Windows.
Post by Industrial One
So yeah, any way to run my program natively or at least a way faster
than running it through DOSBox?
Dual boot system, or find a way to boot to DOS (thumb drive, CD/DVD,
...)
Industrial One
2012-03-08 15:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 05:59:55 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
Post by Industrial One
I am not a Win98 user, I use XP, but I'm crossposting to the 98 group
because if there's anyone that would know about running old programs
on modern machines, I hope it to be you guys.
I was told that legacy DOS drivers are no longer made for modern mobos
as of like 5 years ago, but I constantly hear about nostalgic mofos
finding workarounds.
I do have a workaround which is DOSBox but it greatly slowed down the
performance. Indeed, only a weird motherfucker like me would go out my
way to emulate an EMULATOR and expect the FPS to be smooth. Its ironic
when I think that on the original platform it runs perfectly on 4 MHz
and my 3 GHz i7 can't run it in full FPS.
Welcome to the world of Windows.
Post by Industrial One
So yeah, any way to run my program natively or at least a way faster
than running it through DOSBox?
Dual boot system, or find a way to boot to DOS (thumb drive, CD/DVD,
...)
Elaborate. What tools must I download, what steps must I take?
Ken Springer
2012-03-08 15:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 05:59:55 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
Post by Industrial One
I am not a Win98 user, I use XP, but I'm crossposting to the 98 group
because if there's anyone that would know about running old programs
on modern machines, I hope it to be you guys.
I was told that legacy DOS drivers are no longer made for modern mobos
as of like 5 years ago, but I constantly hear about nostalgic mofos
finding workarounds.
I do have a workaround which is DOSBox but it greatly slowed down the
performance. Indeed, only a weird motherfucker like me would go out my
way to emulate an EMULATOR and expect the FPS to be smooth. Its ironic
when I think that on the original platform it runs perfectly on 4 MHz
and my 3 GHz i7 can't run it in full FPS.
Welcome to the world of Windows.
Post by Industrial One
So yeah, any way to run my program natively or at least a way faster
than running it through DOSBox?
Dual boot system, or find a way to boot to DOS (thumb drive, CD/DVD,
...)
Another option to consider is to use virtual machine software on your XP
computer.

MS has/had two versions of their own VM software. They are free.

VM Fusionware and Parallels have VM software you have to pay for.

Virtual Box is free and open source.

The advantage of VM software is, depending on unknowns at my end, you
can use just about any OS you want. You should be able to even install
DOS. I use Parallels for the Mac, and have XP Pro and Vista Ultimate
installed. Doesn't work perfectly, but updates keep coming out. I also
have a Win box multiboot with the same OS's installed, plus a Win 7 box.
I'm not a big Windows user anymore, but have them for my own enjoyment
and to help my Win owning friends.
--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0.2
Thunderbird 10.0.2
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3
Sjouke Burry
2012-03-08 17:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by pedro
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 05:59:55 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
Post by Industrial One
I am not a Win98 user, I use XP, but I'm crossposting to the 98 group
because if there's anyone that would know about running old programs
on modern machines, I hope it to be you guys.
I was told that legacy DOS drivers are no longer made for modern mobos
as of like 5 years ago, but I constantly hear about nostalgic mofos
finding workarounds.
I do have a workaround which is DOSBox but it greatly slowed down the
performance. Indeed, only a weird motherfucker like me would go out my
way to emulate an EMULATOR and expect the FPS to be smooth. Its ironic
when I think that on the original platform it runs perfectly on 4 MHz
and my 3 GHz i7 can't run it in full FPS.
Welcome to the world of Windows.
Post by Industrial One
So yeah, any way to run my program natively or at least a way faster
than running it through DOSBox?
Dual boot system, or find a way to boot to DOS (thumb drive, CD/DVD,
...)
I simply use a dos6.22 or 7.xx(win98) bootfloppy,
dos 6.22 simply ingnores the ntsf or fat32, and has a secondairy
fat16 partition on drive 2, which it recognizes as drive C.
That way Xp can manage files on that partition, and dos has
full use of the computer(after reboot).
A dos7.xx floppy recognizes the first partition on
drive 2(fat32) nicely as drive c.
Of course you need a floppy or a bootable usb stick.
The only problem I had with this solution, is that the graphics
cards/monitors mowadays have very few legal vga modes,
some only 640*480(16 cols).
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-08 23:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sjouke Burry
I simply use a dos6.22 or 7.xx(win98) bootfloppy,
dos 6.22 simply ingnores the ntsf or fat32,
I did that, but on a 15 MB partition at the end of the first disk, in a dual-
boot using Scorpius. It also has a Datalight network stack and FTP. I ended
up not using it a lot, but it boots like lightning on the occasions when I
do. It has long filename support. Adding NTFS support is possible, but write
access isn't free. Most of its 15 MB is unused, I just let it have that much
because it was a neat leftover from some slice-sizing calculations.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-08 23:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sjouke Burry
The only problem I had with this solution, is that the graphics
cards/monitors mowadays have very few legal vga modes,
some only 640*480(16 cols).
Windows (98, anyway) has that limit too, natively. Allegedly it should manage
800x600x16 too, with the same core support (native SVGA driver), but it won't
work for me. Maybe that's a monitor limitation but doubtful given that once a
full Windows install is built with video driver added, it can do it.

(Technically anything above 640x480 isn't VGA anyway, and according to
Wikipedia the picture is a whole lot more complicated than the usually
assumed SVGA=800x600 and 1024x768, and XVGA=1280x1024 and perhaps 1600x1200,
before all hell breaks loose in so many new formats that it starts to look
silly.)
Sjouke Burry
2012-03-09 00:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lostgallifreyan
Post by Sjouke Burry
The only problem I had with this solution, is that the graphics
cards/monitors mowadays have very few legal vga modes,
some only 640*480(16 cols).
Windows (98, anyway) has that limit too, natively. Allegedly it should
manage 800x600x16 too, with the same core support (native SVGA
driver), but it won't work for me. Maybe that's a monitor limitation
but doubtful given that once a full Windows install is built with
video driver added, it can do it.
(Technically anything above 640x480 isn't VGA anyway, and according to
Wikipedia the picture is a whole lot more complicated than the usually
assumed SVGA=800x600 and 1024x768, and XVGA=1280x1024 and perhaps
1600x1200, before all hell breaks loose in so many new formats that it
starts to look silly.)
Well, on my old computers i use svgacc.lib for graphics
in C and fortran, and i have 16, 256, and rgb color available,
and all without special drivers( et4000 and et6000 xvga cards).
It is downright disappointing to see a "mode not supported" square
floating across the screen.
Tried to load vesa software support on my XP, but that did not
improve things.
Back to my old computers....(60 Mhz pentium2,xvga vesa support and
ethernet package driver support, ISA video grabber and 8 channel 12 bit
ado, 4channel dao).
PS: I have to dump a few of those old machines, running out of space...
But nice for spareparts.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-09 00:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sjouke Burry
Well, on my old computers i use svgacc.lib for graphics
in C and fortran, and i have 16, 256, and rgb color available,
and all without special drivers( et4000 and et6000 xvga cards).
It is downright disappointing to see a "mode not supported" square
floating across the screen.
But that's like my laser scanner on a sound card, where its WDM driver can
set exact 50000 (or 60000, even 90000) samples per second to emulate an ILDA
standard for a fast galvo scanner. But I could only justify the expense of
'Widemoves' that only do maybe 18000 points (or samples) per second. I can
have slightly faster, at narrower scan angle, which is directly analogous to
higher VDU refresh at smaller resolutions, a compromise most us are familiar
with.

In short, there's a lot of difference between driver and hardware capability.
I guess if drivers had ways to spot video performance and scale back when
they see degradation, any number of things may have worked better, but I
don't think it ever happened. But it would be frustrating to be denied what
we know damn well should work.

If drivers could take settings as freely as we can assign sizes and colours
to bitmaps, we'd be ok, but I think the makers didn't want the complexity or
the risk of people burning out raster scan drive transistors, then blaming
the supplier for the freedom they got to hang themselves with. :) All
changing now with DVI-D and TFT LCD pixels, but old habits die hard...
98 Guy
2012-03-08 15:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
I was told that legacy DOS drivers are no longer made for modern
mobos as of like 5 years ago,
It's my impression that the only "DOS" drivers that really keep hanging
on or keep showing up on the driver CD of new motherboards are for the
integrated network (ethernet) ports. Same also for PCI ethernet cards.

I can't really say that I've ever seen DOS drivers lately for other
aspects of the guts of your typical PC (such as chipset, sound, video,
usb, etc).

Normally the system BIOS can supply DOS with all it needs to interact
with the video system (at least up to VGA 640 x 480 mode), com ports,
IDE and even SATA controllers and attached drives, keyboard and mouse,
etc. USB under DOS has always been a questionable issue - but given
your handle (Industrial One) I would suspect that you wound't have much
interest or need in USB functionality under DOS.

Something that would affect the situation drastically for DOS on modern
motherboards is the change from the traditional BIOS to some new form of
bios that I hear is coming out (or is already out) on some bleeding-edge
motherboards (I forget what it's called).

Oh - you should have cross-posted this to some DOS groups, because
Windows 98 is not really a DOS-based operating system. It is a win32 OS
that just happens to get boot-strapped or started from a DOS-mode
state. Win-98 puts the CPU into 32-bit protected mode and offers a
virtual DOS environment for any 16-bit apps that need it. Win-2k and XP
does the same thing, and I think so does Vista. Windows 7 (I think)
does not offer a virtual DOS environment.

I'm adding comp.os.msdos.programmer to the distribution of this thread
(it seems to be the most active "DOS" group).
Post by Industrial One
but I constantly hear about nostalgic mofos finding workarounds.
You can take pretty much any motherboard made even today and boot and
run DOS on it, regardless what sort of hard-drive you attach to the
system. There is nothing nostalgic about that.

What you might or should find nostalgic is seeing any win-9x/me drivers
for modern hardware.

You seem to be equating win-9x/me to DOS in terms of drivers or
hardware, and that would be a false equation.
Post by Industrial One
I do have a workaround which is DOSBox but it greatly slowed down
the performance.
So yeah, any way to run my program natively or at least a way
faster than running it through DOSBox?
Booting a moderm motherboard with DOS is easily possible. Why haven't
you tried that?

Go out and do a search for "DOS 7.1" and download it from the web some
where. Put it on a floppy disk and take it to your desired or target
machine and boot it with the floppy. Attach a hard drive to the machine
and run fdisk and format from the floppy and format the hard drive so
that it will boot into DOS all by itself. Copy all the files and
software you have from your windoze PC to this DOS pc using what-ever
means you can (floppy disks, burned onto a CD, etc).

Why is this so hard for people to do?
Ken Springer
2012-03-08 15:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Why is this so hard for people to do?
Because the majority of users, even in the Win98 and earlier days,
didn't even know how to do it. :-)
--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0.2
Thunderbird 10.0.2
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3
Industrial One
2012-03-08 17:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Okay so either boot into DOS or use a VM, which one would result in
faster performance? I'll assume DOS.

So I download DOS 7.1, then what? Do I have to install this on a thumb
drive to boot from it, and then do I cd to the directory with the
program I wanna run?

The program is not a game, btw. It's an emulator that runs ROMs
(games). Emulating an emulator with DOSBox was... an apalling
experience. Vegan hackers would probably nail me to a cross for
wasting so much energy.
Post by 98 Guy
Why is this so hard for people to do?
Because I have no floppy drive. :D
Ken Springer
2012-03-08 17:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
Okay so either boot into DOS or use a VM, which one would result in
faster performance? I'll assume DOS.
I would guess DOS, but if you were to use a VM, you could XP and DOS at
the same time. And with VM, you could install real DOS, and maybe the
real game would run. I'm not a gamer, but I know some games do funny
things.

I also suspect your XP machine is far faster than an original DOS box,
you may not even notice a speed problem.

Since Virtual Box is free, if you don't like it, you can delete it and
not be out any money.

I know of no reason you couldn't load DOS 7.1 into Virtual Box.
Post by Industrial One
So I download DOS 7.1, then what? Do I have to install this on a thumb
drive to boot from it, and then do I cd to the directory with the
program I wanna run?
The program is not a game, btw. It's an emulator that runs ROMs
(games). Emulating an emulator with DOSBox was... an apalling
experience. Vegan hackers would probably nail me to a cross for
wasting so much energy.
Post by 98 Guy
Why is this so hard for people to do?
Because I have no floppy drive. :D
You can buy an external USB floppy pretty cheap.
--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0.2
Thunderbird 10.0.2
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3
Fritz Wuehler
2012-03-08 21:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Springer
I know of no reason you couldn't load DOS 7.1 into Virtual Box.
You can load it but it will not work 100%. Depending on what you need,
VirtualBox, QEMU etc. do not work very well with DOS. Many programs like
Borland TASM, and MS MASM crash the VM.
Ken Springer
2012-03-08 22:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fritz Wuehler
Post by Ken Springer
I know of no reason you couldn't load DOS 7.1 into Virtual Box.
You can load it but it will not work 100%. Depending on what you need,
VirtualBox, QEMU etc. do not work very well with DOS. Many programs like
Borland TASM, and MS MASM crash the VM.
Maybe a simpler and easier route would be to go to the pawn shop,
Goodwill, flea markets, etc. and buy a desktop that will run DOS without
jumping through hoops.
--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0.2
Thunderbird 10.0.2
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3
Bill in Co
2012-03-09 00:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Fritz Wuehler
Post by Ken Springer
I know of no reason you couldn't load DOS 7.1 into Virtual Box.
You can load it but it will not work 100%. Depending on what you need,
VirtualBox, QEMU etc. do not work very well with DOS. Many programs like
Borland TASM, and MS MASM crash the VM.
Maybe a simpler and easier route would be to go to the pawn shop,
Goodwill, flea markets, etc. and buy a desktop that will run DOS without
jumping through hoops.
The other problem (which is often a big problem, particularly with games),
is being able to slow down the programs to run properly (i.e. usably) on a
current system. There are some programs that "steal" CPU cycles to try to
accomplish this, but they often don't work too well.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-09 00:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill in Co
The other problem (which is often a big problem, particularly with games),
is being able to slow down the programs to run properly (i.e. usably) on a
current system. There are some programs that "steal" CPU cycles to try to
accomplish this, but they often don't work too well.
I think this is another reason we need proper low level VM's. That way we
have a chance of easily switching something that gives accuracy for any need.

Timers in C, depending on hardware, can be a terrible problem. I don't know
much about it all yet, but I do know that it bakes the noodles of expert
after expert as well as mine. At one time it drove me away from learning C at
all, and it was more than a decade later when I tried again after learning
wxLua instead, mostly. I know it's a compiler problem rather than the
language, but if we can't trust a foundation, where is the incentive to build
on it?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2012-03-10 15:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Springer
Post by Fritz Wuehler
Post by Ken Springer
I know of no reason you couldn't load DOS 7.1 into Virtual Box.
You can load it but it will not work 100%. Depending on what you need,
VirtualBox, QEMU etc. do not work very well with DOS. Many programs like
Borland TASM, and MS MASM crash the VM.
Maybe a simpler and easier route would be to go to the pawn shop,
Goodwill, flea markets, etc. and buy a desktop that will run DOS
without jumping through hoops.
Indeed - in fact depending on what country you're in and what laws it
has, you may even be paid to take it away!

But you did say you have your "old" P4 machine and would be a happy
bunny if you never had to use it again.

You may find that, if you turn it into a DOS machine (or DOS and W98 [SE
lite or anniversary edition], with the boot menu turned on so you can go
straight into DOS), that you'll never have to use what you remember
again, if what you remember is that machine struggling to run XP; you'd
probably find that it is the bee's knees running pure DOS. And if it
hasn't got a floppy, I think a P4 machine will be old enough that there
will at least be a floppy connector on the mobo (and you should be able
to get a gash floppy, even if new ones aren't being made much).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)***@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The main and the most glorious achievement of television is that it is killing
the art of conversation. If we think of the type of conversation television is
helping to kill, our gratitude must be undying. (George Mikes, "How to be
Inimitable" [1960].)
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-08 23:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fritz Wuehler
You can load it but it will not work 100%. Depending on what you need,
VirtualBox, QEMU etc. do not work very well with DOS. Many programs like
Borland TASM, and MS MASM crash the VM.
This is why we need proper low level i386 VM, instead of high level. That,
and the changes in hardware and BIOS likely to develop now that ARM cores are
getting popular.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-08 23:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
So I download DOS 7.1, then what? Do I have to install this on a thumb
drive to boot from it, and then do I cd to the directory with the
program I wanna run?
Google for 'EBD' (emergency boot disk), you'll likely still find original
Microsoft guides for that if you can find them through all the noise on
Google these days.

Basically it amounts to having some new disk you can work on (you don't want
to wipe out an established one...). Boot to floppy, DC, or USB CF (or SD)
card adapter. Use FDISK to make partitions. Then format them. Use SYS C: if
you forgot to ask it to be bootable during format. Then install DOS or
Windows. Most good emergency boot disks will have CD drive support to let you
get at the big stuff you want to put on the hard disk.

Rather than use CD to change directory, set up paths in your autoexec.bat
file. Some DOS programs aren't good with paths and MIGHT need to run with CD
setting their own as workign directory, but that all comes after getting the
foundations in there.
Franc Zabkar
2012-03-09 02:36:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:06:13 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
Post by Industrial One
So I download DOS 7.1, then what? Do I have to install this on a thumb
drive to boot from it, and then do I cd to the directory with the
program I wanna run?
The program is not a game, btw. It's an emulator that runs ROMs
(games).
You could boot DOS from a USB drive or CD, and then create a RAM disk
via a line in autoxec.bat. If your app requires TEMP space, then SET
the TEMP directory to your RAM disk. Otherwise, if your app writes to
some other directory on the disc, then copy your app to your RAM drive
and launch it from there instead. All this could be done automatically
via appropriate lines in autoexec.bat.

If you could be more specific, perhaps one of us could expand on this
for you.

BTW, how much disc space does your DOS app occupy and how much RAM
does it require?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Industrial One
2012-03-09 16:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franc Zabkar
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:06:13 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
Post by Industrial One
So I download DOS 7.1, then what? Do I have to install this on a thumb
drive to boot from it, and then do I cd to the directory with the
program I wanna run?
The program is not a game, btw. It's an emulator that runs ROMs
(games).
You could boot DOS from a USB drive or CD, and then create a RAM disk
via a line in autoxec.bat. If your app requires TEMP space, then SET
the TEMP directory to your RAM disk. Otherwise, if your app writes to
some other directory on the disc, then copy your app to your RAM drive
and launch it from there instead. All this could be done automatically
via appropriate lines in autoexec.bat.
If you could be more specific, perhaps one of us could expand on this
for you.
BTW, how much disc space does your DOS app occupy and how much RAM
does it require?
The application itself is around 300 KB, the roms are between 2 to 6
MB. RAM usage shouldn't be above 60 MB.

I set up DOS 7.1 with Virtualbox because this was more intuitive than
having to restart the comp every time to get around issues. This
virtualization shit is kinda cool, the only disappointing thing is the
fact that I can't browse my regular OS from it. The only way I could
copy files to the virtual DOS is making a CD ISO of the directory with
my app and loading from there.

This has failed, though. There is no sound and the emulator freezes
the moment I tried to load a game. How do you set color depth on
Virtualbox btw? It says its on 32-bit and needs 16-bit but I don't see
such option anywhere.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-09 17:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
I set up DOS 7.1 with Virtualbox because this was more intuitive than
having to restart the comp every time to get around issues. This
virtualization shit is kinda cool, the only disappointing thing is the
fact that I can't browse my regular OS from it.
No way to mount external partitions and disks in it? I remember that DOSbox
can do that. it just doesn't do it by default, I had to ask.
Franc Zabkar
2012-03-13 22:10:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:07:02 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
Post by Industrial One
Post by Franc Zabkar
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:06:13 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
Post by Industrial One
So I download DOS 7.1, then what? Do I have to install this on a thumb
drive to boot from it, and then do I cd to the directory with the
program I wanna run?
The program is not a game, btw. It's an emulator that runs ROMs
(games).
You could boot DOS from a USB drive or CD, and then create a RAM disk
via a line in autoxec.bat. If your app requires TEMP space, then SET
the TEMP directory to your RAM disk. Otherwise, if your app writes to
some other directory on the disc, then copy your app to your RAM drive
and launch it from there instead. All this could be done automatically
via appropriate lines in autoexec.bat.
If you could be more specific, perhaps one of us could expand on this
for you.
BTW, how much disc space does your DOS app occupy and how much RAM
does it require?
The application itself is around 300 KB, the roms are between 2 to 6
MB. RAM usage shouldn't be above 60 MB.
I set up DOS 7.1 with Virtualbox because this was more intuitive than
having to restart the comp every time to get around issues. This
virtualization shit is kinda cool, the only disappointing thing is the
fact that I can't browse my regular OS from it. The only way I could
copy files to the virtual DOS is making a CD ISO of the directory with
my app and loading from there.
This has failed, though. There is no sound and the emulator freezes
the moment I tried to load a game. How do you set color depth on
Virtualbox btw? It says its on 32-bit and needs 16-bit but I don't see
such option anywhere.
ISTM that you could follow the procedure used by Seagate in its
firmware updates. These packages boot to FreeDOS. They then create a
RAM drive and copy their executables to it. The program is then
launched from the RAM drive.

Some CD ISO based update packages incorporate a 1.44MB floppy diskette
image, while others incorporate a HDD image.

You can see what I mean if you use IsoBuster, Winimage, and 7-Zip to
analyse Seagate's CD ISOs:
http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207931

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Rugxulo
2012-03-30 21:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Industrial One
The application itself is around 300 KB, the roms are between 2 to 6
MB. RAM usage shouldn't be above 60 MB.
60 MB? Okay, not that surprised, even DJGPP stuff uses a lot these
days, but it seems overkill for a few MB of data.
Post by Industrial One
I set up DOS 7.1 with Virtualbox because this was more intuitive than
having to restart the comp every time to get around issues.
Yes, of course.
Post by Industrial One
This virtualization shit is kinda cool, the only disappointing thing is the
fact that I can't browse my regular OS from it. The only way I could
copy files to the virtual DOS is making a CD ISO of the directory with
my app and loading from there.
You may be able to use MS NET and/or an FTP server. Check
lazybrowndog's networking guide. (Or if you later try VMware, then try
Eduardo's VMSMOUNT tool.)

http://lazybrowndog.net/freedos/virtualbox/
Post by Industrial One
This has failed, though. There is no sound and the emulator freezes
the moment I tried to load a game. How do you set color depth on
Virtualbox btw? It says its on 32-bit and needs 16-bit but I don't see
such option anywhere.
Yeah, VBox has quite a few bugs in DOS emulation. If your cpu has VT-X
(which I guess not, sadly), it should work okay though. Too bad more
cpus don't support it.
Industrial One
2012-03-31 00:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rugxulo
Hi,
Post by Industrial One
The application itself is around 300 KB, the roms are between 2 to 6
MB. RAM usage shouldn't be above 60 MB.
60 MB? Okay, not that surprised, even DJGPP stuff uses a lot these
days, but it seems overkill for a few MB of data.
It was overkill actually, I set up a new VM with DOS 6.22 with 32 MB
of RAM this time and it works perfectly time. 60 MB was my upper
guestimate.
Post by Rugxulo
You may be able to use MS NET and/or an FTP server. Check
lazybrowndog's networking guide. (Or if you later try VMware, then try
Eduardo's VMSMOUNT tool.)
http://lazybrowndog.net/freedos/virtualbox/
Good to know, but it's allright. I never used a VM before so I
completely missed the point behind it which was to isolate itself
completely from the OS yet be operated from it. I thought it would
just be another directory on my hard disk where the files can be
manipulated from my physical OS.
Post by Rugxulo
Post by Industrial One
I managed to install Soundblaster finally (I hate having a thousand
choices) and figured out why the sound was cracking up. When I set
core affinity to 1 the sound stopped crackling and was perfect. What
does core affinity have to do with sound quality, does anybody know?
In what, Windows or DOSBox? I'm not big on Windows internals, but I
think DOSBox uses SDL, and later versions (1.3 ??) are multi-
threaded / multi-core or whatever for better performance, though
DOSBox itself isn't. So maybe?? that's why? (Confusing.)
In the DOS VM, but on DOSBox too and this has happened with other
programs too. Could it be that my audio drivers are multithreaded or
something? I'm genuinely curious. This hasn't happened to anyone else,
apparently.
Ronald Phillips
2012-04-06 16:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
Post by Rugxulo
Hi,
Post by Industrial One
The application itself is around 300 KB, the roms are between 2 to 6
MB. RAM usage shouldn't be above 60 MB.
60 MB? Okay, not that surprised, even DJGPP stuff uses a lot these
days, but it seems overkill for a few MB of data.
It was overkill actually, I set up a new VM with DOS 6.22 with 32 MB
of RAM this time and it works perfectly time. 60 MB was my upper
guestimate.
Post by Rugxulo
You may be able to use MS NET and/or an FTP server. Check
lazybrowndog's networking guide. (Or if you later try VMware, then try
Eduardo's VMSMOUNT tool.)
http://lazybrowndog.net/freedos/virtualbox/
Good to know, but it's allright. I never used a VM before so I
completely missed the point behind it which was to isolate itself
completely from the OS yet be operated from it. I thought it would
just be another directory on my hard disk where the files can be
manipulated from my physical OS.
Post by Rugxulo
Post by Industrial One
I managed to install Soundblaster finally (I hate having a thousand
choices) and figured out why the sound was cracking up. When I set
core affinity to 1 the sound stopped crackling and was perfect. What
does core affinity have to do with sound quality, does anybody know?
In what, Windows orDOSBox? I'm not big on Windows internals, but I
thinkDOSBoxuses SDL, and later versions (1.3 ??) are multi-
threaded / multi-core or whatever for better performance, though
DOSBoxitself isn't. So maybe?? that's why? (Confusing.)
In the DOS VM, but onDOSBoxtoo and this has happened with other
programs too. Could it be that my audio drivers are multithreaded or
something? I'm genuinely curious. This hasn't happened to anyone else,
apparently.
Almost all old programs do not use multiple threads. Setting affinity
to a single thread (or using Windows compatibilities modes which does
this automagically) is a common technique to get games to work that
don't like multiple processors.

p***@nohoo.com
2012-03-09 16:33:26 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:06:13 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
Post by Industrial One
Okay so either boot into DOS or use a VM, which one would result in
faster performance? I'll assume DOS.
So I download DOS 7.1, then what? Do I have to install this on a thumb
drive to boot from it, and then do I cd to the directory with the
program I wanna run?
The program is not a game, btw. It's an emulator that runs ROMs
(games). Emulating an emulator with DOSBox was... an apalling
experience. Vegan hackers would probably nail me to a cross for
wasting so much energy.
Post by 98 Guy
Why is this so hard for people to do?
Because I have no floppy drive. :D
Adding a floppy drive is pretty easy as long as there is a space in your
case for it. You can buy one on ebay for probably $10 or less.

Another option. There are old computers everywhere for free or a couple
bucks. Most still work. It's only MS that makes them worthless with
their newest bloated OSs. Just get a second computer. Watch craigslist
and local garage sales and auctions.

I'm posting this from a Win98 computer. I still have Dos. I refuse to
use any MS bloatware without dos. I have XP on one computer and never
use it. You couldn't give me Vista or Win7 for free. I still use lots
of Dos apps.

---
Just because MS wants me to throw my old computer in the trash and
upgrade to their latest bloatware, dont mean I will. MS is not my
employer, school teacher, or parent! Win98 is the only OS made by MS
that was worth anything. After 98, they began creating garbage!
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-09 17:40:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@nohoo.com
Just because MS wants me to throw my old computer in the trash and
upgrade to their latest bloatware, dont mean I will. MS is not my
employer, school teacher, or parent! Win98 is the only OS made by MS
that was worth anything. After 98, they began creating garbage!
I agree. But I'm posting to say somethign slightly different on the basic
theme... M$ 'deprecate' stuff, and even if you look up API details on their
site they try to tell us that stuff is only applicable to WXP, etc... This is
nonsense, most of it comes from W95's time, and runs equally well on every OS
since. And on Wine in Linux too. Hopefully M$ will realise that it's stupid
to 'deprecate', in a world wher firms generally trade on any solid history
they can get. Never mind the fact that code doesn't improve with age like
wine and whisky, it's still nearly 20 years of well-established code base
that they could be proud of, and acknowledge that past as a strength instead
of trying to make us all throw it away. If they don't value it, eventually
profit will go to those who do. At which point, W98 might be seen as a very
desirable system in some contexts, rather than a curiosity that many let
themselves beleive meant nothing anymore.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
2012-03-09 18:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franc Zabkar
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:06:13 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
Post by Industrial One
Okay so either boot into DOS or use a VM, which one would result in
faster performance? I'll assume DOS.
So I download DOS 7.1, then what? Do I have to install this on a thumb
drive to boot from it, and then do I cd to the directory with the
program I wanna run?
The program is not a game, btw. It's an emulator that runs ROMs
(games). Emulating an emulator with DOSBox was... an apalling
experience. Vegan hackers would probably nail me to a cross for
wasting so much energy.
Post by 98 Guy
Why is this so hard for people to do?
Because I have no floppy drive. :D
Adding a floppy drive is pretty easy as long as there is a space in your
case for it. You can buy one on ebay for probably $10 or less.
Many newer computers do not have a floppy controller on the
motherboard, so it isn't always quite that easy. Also, the last
company that makes one of the critical components necessary to
manufacture floppy drives has discontinued that product, so the floppy
drives currently on the market right now are all that there are ever
going to be (unless someone commissions them to make another batch,
which seems unlikely).
--
Zaphod

The secret of flying is to hurl yourself to the ground, and miss.
Jim Leonard
2012-03-15 14:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
The program is not a game, btw. It's an emulator that runs ROMs
Which emulator? There might be a more elegant solution than trying to
run it in a DOS-like environment.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-08 23:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Something that would affect the situation drastically for DOS on modern
motherboards is the change from the traditional BIOS to some new form of
bios that I hear is coming out (or is already out) on some bleeding-edge
motherboards (I forget what it's called).
That could ease the situation in the long run, but only when it has driven
people to make good low level virtual machines. But when they do, the idea of
any OS being 'obsolete' will vanish, because people will no longer need to
guard against hardware becoming unavailable to run them, and they can use
whatever suits them so long as some virtual machine will run it on the
hardware they want. This is an ideal method, just not one we have much of,
yet. Most VM's are still too high-level, too OS dependent. Silly really,
given that 32 bit protected mode (and the Tenberry version used by Partition
Magic, etc) are all low level, showing that it can be done.

I have nice dreamy visions of multiple cores running one HUGELY fast W98. :)
All that raw power there for programs instead of the OS chewing lots of it...
Or one fast new machine allowing two virtual computers to run on one VM
layer. The VM would in effect be one big complex static VXD driver, and the
computers running on it would have no idea they weren't on dedicated hardware
made for them.
dg1261
2012-03-10 01:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lostgallifreyan
That could ease the situation in the long run, but only when it has
driven people to make good low level virtual machines. But when they
do, the idea of any OS being 'obsolete' will vanish, because people
will no longer need to guard against hardware becoming unavailable to
run them, and they can use whatever suits them so long as some virtual
machine will run it on the hardware they want. This is an ideal
method, just not one we have much of, yet. Most VM's are still too
high-level, too OS dependent. Silly really, given that 32 bit
protected mode (and the Tenberry version used by Partition Magic, etc)
are all low level, showing that it can be done.
I have nice dreamy visions of multiple cores running one HUGELY fast
W98. :) All that raw power there for programs instead of the OS
chewing lots of it... Or one fast new machine allowing two virtual
computers to run on one VM layer. The VM would in effect be one big
complex static VXD driver, and the computers running on it would have
no idea they weren't on dedicated hardware made for them.
Yes, decoupling the computer from the hardware! That's where I thought
the industry was headed when I began using VMs 7 yrs ago. I've been
sadly disappointed. We should have been there by now.

I had visions of everyone carrying around their own personal "computer"
as a VM on a flash drive of some fashion, with the hardware computer
being merely a VM shell that the BIOS would boot straight into. You
could carry your own "PC" in your pocket, plug it into a VM shell at any
library, kiosk, coffee shop, or friend's house, and you'd instantly have
your own computer with your own OS and your own apps and everything.

Maybe I'm pessimistic, but now I feel we'll never get there. The
lemmings are stampeding to the Apple strategy of walled gardens, app
stores, and abdicating control of your machine to the corporate
establishment. Microsoft is following suit, as evidenced by their UEFI
BIOS and their change of course with Windows 8. Once the desktop PC
market becomes entrapped in the mobile way of doing things, it will be
too late to change.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-10 03:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by dg1261
I had visions of everyone carrying around their own personal "computer"
as a VM on a flash drive of some fashion, with the hardware computer
being merely a VM shell that the BIOS would boot straight into. You
could carry your own "PC" in your pocket, plug it into a VM shell at any
library, kiosk, coffee shop, or friend's house, and you'd instantly have
your own computer with your own OS and your own apps and everything.
That is a very appealing idea. Telling people about how 'cloud computing'
sucks won't cut it, but offering them a vision like that might. It's like
that Doctor Who book I read years back, where a Tibetan lama says that a fish
would be happier if his bowl could be emptied into the ocean, and the Doctor
says, yes, but how much happier would he be if the ocean could be emptied
into the bowl? (And he should know, a TARDIS being what it is. :)

The whole mobile computing thing was pretty much sold on that notion. And
only the rich get to take real comfort onto the roads. A VM method could
allow that freedom to many, as opposed to the cloud which is basically murky.
That's what clouds do, they make it hard to see. People put out all their
power, and it gets taken and used behind what might well amount to a veil of
deceit. All that free processing being offered now, will have a PRICE to pay,
by which time people will want out from that cloud, maybe too late. And given
what network protocols are, there's nothing about the VM model that conspires
against distributed systems anyway.

Actually, there IS a way the VM might make its way. Currently, IT in various
firms has been based on many similar machines. I read on the BBC site that
some firms are letting people use their own machines. This is because people
are more productive if they have their own environment and can work fast in
comfort with it. Opponents will say that the incompatibilies may be many, a
nightmare for sysadmins, but a VM method might help that a lot. That way the
sysadmin never has to worry about the box, but only about what goes in and
out of it.
Industrial One
2012-03-10 12:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Guys, how do I edit the config.sys to set up sound since I can't
access my fake DOS machine with my real machine? Also, I noticed the
cursor on the emulator is being limited to a larger grid of some sort
so it doesn't go as smoothly as I remember.

To whoever suggested using an old computer, I already still have my P4
and I'll die a happy mofo if I don't have to use it ever again,
m'kay? ;)

I prefer to enjoy the high speed of my new i7.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-10 23:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
how do I edit the config.sys to set up sound since I can't
access my fake DOS machine with my real machine?
That's down the emulator details. I don't know them. But I do know that DOS
programs often used sound from the PC speaker, not at all the same as using
some sound card. Either way the emulator will have to make whatever access is
needed. If yours can't, you'll have to find one that can. Also, if running on
W98, beeps sent to the PC speaker usually come out as single short clicks. An
emulator may or may not be able to over-ride that. There are small 'beep'
programs around that do at least prove that it can work. Sound cards ought to
be easier, the emulator is a windows program, and should use one as any other
windows program would. After that, the program it's supporting should work
without knowing anything about it. If you can't use a config.sys setting
exactly as normal, the emulator should be telling you what to use instead.
Industrial One
2012-03-11 10:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lostgallifreyan
Post by Industrial One
how do I edit the config.sys to set up sound since I can't
access my fake DOS machine with my real machine?
That's down the emulator details. I don't know them. But I do know that DOS
programs often used sound from the PC speaker, not at all the same as using
some sound card. Either way the emulator will have to make whatever access is
needed. If yours can't, you'll have to find one that can. Also, if running on
W98, beeps sent to the PC speaker usually come out as single short clicks. An
emulator may or may not be able to over-ride that. There are small 'beep'
programs around that do at least prove that it can work. Sound cards ought to
be easier, the emulator is a windows program, and should use one as any other
windows program would. After that, the program it's supporting should work
without knowing anything about it. If you can't use a config.sys setting
exactly as normal, the emulator should be telling you what to use instead.
Which driver do I install? I've been told Soundblaster16 but I see
multiple versions all over the net. Do I have to find one according to
my mobo or something (I thought the damn VM was supposed to take care
of this)?

Also, whats a good mouse driver? I've tried a couple but they all
feature a cursor locked to a grid. Does one of them have smoother
navigation?

Btw, I'm on DOS 6.22 now. People recommended to ditch 7.10 because it
was unstable or something.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-11 11:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
Which driver do I install? I've been told Soundblaster16 but I see
multiple versions all over the net. Do I have to find one according to
my mobo or something (I thought the damn VM was supposed to take care
of this)?
I don't know. If there are lots, you'll need to try one, and have a way to
restore all of the original config, and try another till something works.
Whatever you read, anywhere, you'll need to do this to be sure. The VM IS
supposed to take care of it. Should provide the IRQ and everything. The main
problem is that timing might be critical. Just as some games might depend on
a hardware clock speed, and run badly in an emulator, so might timing
functions for sound output. Only trying stuff will reveal the extent of
hazard.
Post by Industrial One
Also, whats a good mouse driver? I've tried a couple but they all
feature a cursor locked to a grid. Does one of them have smoother
navigation?
DOS screens are text based, the pattern is usually 25, 43, or 50 lines, and
40 or 80 characters. Even if you have a mouse cursor that appears to move
smoothly, you can still only address the position of one character in a DOS
text screen.
Post by Industrial One
Btw, I'm on DOS 6.22 now. People recommended to ditch 7.10 because it
was unstable or something.
DOS 6.22 is a good choice. DOS 7 isn't unstable, it just lacks some of the
DOS 6 tools because it's made as a base for W9X. You might have version
conflicts preventing some imported older DOS tools from running. You can use
Setver.exe to correct this, but it's one of those things that I never got to
work. I didn't try hard, it's always best to choose the system most likely to
support your need without that extra complication. If your program was meant
to run in true DOS, before Windows, then DOS v6.22 might not only be a good
choice, but the best one. (I still keep it around even though I don't use it
now. It's inbuilt help was particularly good, I used that after I'd quit
using it for anything else.
Industrial One
2012-03-11 11:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lostgallifreyan
Post by Industrial One
Which driver do I install? I've been told Soundblaster16 but I see
multiple versions all over the net. Do I have to find one according to
my mobo or something (I thought the damn VM was supposed to take care
of this)?
I don't know. If there are lots, you'll need to try one, and have a way to
restore all of the original config, and try another till something works.
Whatever you read, anywhere, you'll need to do this to be sure. The VM IS
supposed to take care of it. Should provide the IRQ and everything. The main
problem is that timing might be critical. Just as some games might depend on
a hardware clock speed, and run badly in an emulator, so might timing
functions for sound output. Only trying stuff will reveal the extent of
hazard.
Okay, is there a repository anywhere? They are scattered all over the
place. DOSBox runs the emulator fine and I'd be using it right now
were it not dragging on like pissed-on Playstation. Is there a way to
figure out which Soundblaster driver DOSBox uses so I can use it in
DOS 6.22?
Post by Lostgallifreyan
Post by Industrial One
Also, whats a good mouse driver? I've tried a couple but they all
feature a cursor locked to a grid. Does one of them have smoother
navigation?
DOS screens are text based, the pattern is usually 25, 43, or 50 lines, and
40 or 80 characters. Even if you have a mouse cursor that appears to move
smoothly, you can still only address the position of one character in a DOS
text screen.
I understand, and I don't care about the smoothness inside the DOS OS,
I care about the smoothness inside the emulator program.
Post by Lostgallifreyan
Post by Industrial One
Btw, I'm on DOS 6.22 now. People recommended to ditch 7.10 because it
was unstable or something.
DOS 6.22 is a good choice. DOS 7 isn't unstable, it just lacks some of the
DOS 6 tools because it's made as a base for W9X. You might have version
conflicts preventing some imported older DOS tools from running. You can use
What version conflict? I installed 6.22 on a brand new VM.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-11 13:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
Okay, is there a repository anywhere? They are scattered all over the
place. DOSBox runs the emulator fine and I'd be using it right now
were it not dragging on like pissed-on Playstation. Is there a way to
figure out which Soundblaster driver DOSBox uses so I can use it in
DOS 6.22?
I don't know. Try something. Anything. The time to agonise is when there's
nothing to try when you have to have something. I don't know enough to advise
anything specific about soundblasters, except to disable the onboard synth
and any features you don't need, as some of them use three IRQ's and you
might as well cut all potential difficulties.

DOSbox ought to have a lot of info about sound output, it's extremely
unlikely that this hasn't been asked of them many times, so see what they say
about it.
Post by Industrial One
I understand, and I don't care about the smoothness inside the DOS OS,
I care about the smoothness inside the emulator program.
I don't know what that means. If you're emulating DOS, there will be a text
mode, with a grid like I described. There IS no smooth mouse positioning in
that context. By definition, if you see smooth position changes, you're not
in DOS, you're in a window made by the OS. The distinction might be hard to
spot when using a DOS session in a windowed mode, but it's there. For
example. open ANY command line window, use Alt+Space, then E then K to
activate selection, and you can drag the selection by holdign down the left
mouse button. The pointer will move smoothly, but the test selection box will
not. If you're seeing sluggish motion, delays, that's something else,
something impeding system (window) messages.
Post by Industrial One
What version conflict? I installed 6.22 on a brand new VM.
Between versions of DOS. For example, there's a TREE command in DOS 6. Isn't
in DOS 7, for W9X foundation. But you can't use it even if you add it, it
will give a 'wrong DOS version' error. DOS v6.22 has a large set of native
commands, so if that one supports your program and runs in that emulator, use
it. Never mind not having obvious needs for specific tools, it's a full DOS
install, v7.1 wasn't intended to be one, and isn't.
BillW50
2012-03-11 14:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lostgallifreyan
Between versions of DOS. For example, there's a TREE command in DOS 6. Isn't
in DOS 7, for W9X foundation. But you can't use it even if you add it, it
will give a 'wrong DOS version' error. DOS v6.22 has a large set of native
commands, so if that one supports your program and runs in that emulator, use
it. Never mind not having obvious needs for specific tools, it's a full DOS
install, v7.1 wasn't intended to be one, and isn't.
One of the cool things I liked with Windows (v3.xx to Windows 7) is that
you can replace the desktop (shell) with something else. Like for
example under Windows 3.xx and Windows 9x, you can replace
shell=explorer.exe to command.com (I forget if it is in System.ini or
Win.ini).

And when you boot, you get a multitasking DOS. The full blown Windows is
still there if you ever need it. Say for example if you want to run
notepad, just type it through the command prompt. But what is also nice
about this multitasking DOS is that it also sports the better memory
management of Windows (VM).
--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo 2GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-11 15:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillW50
One of the cool things I liked with Windows (v3.xx to Windows 7) is that
you can replace the desktop (shell) with something else. Like for
example under Windows 3.xx and Windows 9x, you can replace
shell=explorer.exe to command.com (I forget if it is in System.ini or
Win.ini).
And when you boot, you get a multitasking DOS. The full blown Windows is
still there if you ever need it. Say for example if you want to run
notepad, just type it through the command prompt. But what is also nice
about this multitasking DOS is that it also sports the better memory
management of Windows (VM).
That could be neat, if we can set screen resolution high when calling windows
programs in it. I know that a Windows program will run when Explorer is shut
down, but never made the jump to realising that it could be launched from a
command window even if Explorer is shut down. (The Run command field works,
but that's still basically Explorer...) All still 32 bit protected mode
though, so no real mode DOS emulation, I guess, DOSbox would still be needed.
(But might possibly run better, if the Explorer shell isn't there to risk any
kind of conflict of interest with it).

System.ini is the one with that shell launch line.
Industrial One
2012-03-12 00:57:02 UTC
Permalink
I managed to install Soundblaster finally (I hate having a thousand
choices) and figured out why the sound was cracking up. When I set
core affinity to 1 the sound stopped crackling and was perfect. What
does core affinity have to do with sound quality, does anybody know?
Post by Lostgallifreyan
Post by Industrial One
I understand, and I don't care about the smoothness inside the DOS OS,
I care about the smoothness inside the emulator program.
I don't know what that means. If you're emulating DOS, there will be a text
mode, with a grid like I described. There IS no smooth mouse positioning in
that context. By definition, if you see smooth position changes, you're not
in DOS, you're in a window made by the OS. The distinction might be hard to
spot when using a DOS session in a windowed mode, but it's there. For
example. open ANY command line window, use Alt+Space, then E then K to
activate selection, and you can drag the selection by holdign down the left
mouse button. The pointer will move smoothly, but the test selection box will
not. If you're seeing sluggish motion, delays, that's something else,
something impeding system (window) messages.
http://www.zshare.net/video/9937683548863d42/
http://www.zshare.net/video/993768395f76905d/

First one is how it is right now (notice how I can't hit the "Full
screen" checkbox and a few others) second one is what it should look
like. I tried doing that alt+space thing and the cursor went out of
whack, clicking made it advance upwards one pace which was still about
30 pixels.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-12 01:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
http://www.zshare.net/video/9937683548863d42/
http://www.zshare.net/video/993768395f76905d/
First one is how it is right now (notice how I can't hit the "Full
screen" checkbox and a few others) second one is what it should look
like. I tried doing that alt+space thing and the cursor went out of
whack, clicking made it advance upwards one pace which was still about
30 pixels.
I can't see them. Just an ad then a popup then a file-not-found error.

About the difference between standard command windows and what you're seeing,
it may not matter. You're emulating real mode DOS, the umulator likely has
its own tools to do what Windows would do in its own command windows.

About core affinity, I have no idea, but sound breaking up usually means that
a buffer empties before it can be filled enough, so anything that corrects
that is alomost certainly a right move whether we understand it or not.
Industrial One
2012-03-12 02:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lostgallifreyan
Post by Industrial One
http://www.zshare.net/video/9937683548863d42/
http://www.zshare.net/video/993768395f76905d/
First one is how it is right now (notice how I can't hit the "Full
screen" checkbox and a few others) second one is what it should look
like. I tried doing that alt+space thing and the cursor went out of
whack, clicking made it advance upwards one pace which was still about
30 pixels.
I can't see them. Just an ad then a popup then a file-not-found error.
Ugh, zshare sucks.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/uihtl4
http://www.sendspace.com/file/l6lasd
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-12 03:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
Ugh, zshare sucks.
You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment. :) (Which of course
means I already thought that zshare sucks, in exactly as many words..)
Post by Industrial One
http://www.sendspace.com/file/uihtl4
http://www.sendspace.com/file/l6lasd
Can't see those either. Doesn't matter, I got the general idea anyway. (But
whatever format that is, avoid it! Stay with XviD, or even WMV, otherwise
people likely have to fight to get it, then can't see it even if they get
that far. Always go with formats that everyone can see. I couldn't see those,
or even identify the streams im MPC.
Industrial One
2012-03-12 03:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lostgallifreyan
Post by Industrial One
Ugh, zshare sucks.
You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment. :) (Which of course
means I already thought that zshare sucks, in exactly as many words..)
Post by Industrial One
http://www.sendspace.com/file/uihtl4
http://www.sendspace.com/file/l6lasd
Can't see those either. Doesn't matter, I got the general idea anyway. (But
whatever format that is, avoid it! Stay with XviD, or even WMV, otherwise
people likely have to fight to get it, then can't see it even if they get
that far. Always go with formats that everyone can see. I couldn't see those,
or even identify the streams im MPC.
Good lord man...

They are Lagarith Lossless format. XviD sucks dick, nobody uses it
anymore and it doesn't support high-quality RGB like Lagarith. x264
does, but finding the right splitters to get it to play back correctly
is something that's a pain in the ass for me let alone a noob.
Download K-Lite codec pack and you'll never have to fight to play back
99% of formats out there.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/bzgp0v
http://www.sendspace.com/file/fjrv26

^ Shitty XviD format.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-12 04:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
f6b-
Post by Lostgallifreyan
Post by Industrial One
Ugh, zshare sucks.
You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment. :) (Which of course
means I already thought that zshare sucks, in exactly as many words..)
Post by Industrial One
http://www.sendspace.com/file/uihtl4
http://www.sendspace.com/file/l6lasd
Can't see those either. Doesn't matter, I got the general idea anyway. (B
ut
Post by Lostgallifreyan
whatever format that is, avoid it! Stay with XviD, or even WMV, otherwise
people likely have to fight to get it, then can't see it even if they get
that far. Always go with formats that everyone can see. I couldn't see th
ose,
Post by Lostgallifreyan
or even identify the streams im MPC.
Good lord man...
They are Lagarith Lossless format. XviD sucks dick, nobody uses it
anymore and it doesn't support high-quality RGB like Lagarith. x264
does, but finding the right splitters to get it to play back correctly
is something that's a pain in the ass for me let alone a noob.
Download K-Lite codec pack and you'll never have to fight to play back
99% of formats out there.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/bzgp0v
http://www.sendspace.com/file/fjrv26
^ Shitty XviD format.
One of the groups this is crossposted to is a W98 group. Right now the only
person helping you is in that group. W98 users tend to use it for slower
machines, (in my case for its efficiency on off-grid solar power, and in
reducing OS demands in favour of program requirements). Even if we can
download HD formats, we might not be able to play them because they make huge
demands on CPU power and video support.

For what it's worth, XviD is in HUGE use, all over Usenet and plenty else,
but I never heard of Lagarith before. Don't much care to. As you say, finding
all the right stuff to handle all the latest video IS a pain! That's why I
said go with older formats when you're expecting any and all to view stuff.
K-lite and other codec packs don't cure all for everyone anyway. On W98 they
won't even let us install (unless we go with older ones that lack the support
you're saying we should have). We'd have to use KernelEx to run new ones. Not
that this is a weakness, but it IS another example of why you should not
assume that the latest and greatest is miraculously suitable for all. That
kind of logic is like saying everyone must use .NET in some imaginary world
where no-one heard of the Win32 API, never mind Linux.

You have compatibility problems with stuff, so it's not wise to assume that
other people should have compatibility with unusual formats, especially with
lossless video formats which few people would even contemplate downloading,
even now. Shuttling lossless video is a task rarely done outside a fast video
workstation with SCSI disks, never mind loose on the net, whatever the file
size. I'm sure you could point me to special interest groups who do it but
it's not a thing to expect us all to do.
Patok
2012-03-12 05:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
Good lord man...
They are Lagarith Lossless format. XviD sucks dick, nobody uses it
anymore and it doesn't support high-quality RGB like Lagarith. x264
does, but finding the right splitters to get it to play back correctly
is something that's a pain in the ass for me let alone a noob.
Download K-Lite codec pack and you'll never have to fight to play back
99% of formats out there.
You don't deserve any help with that attitude. It is quite insulting.
In addition to what Lostgallifreyan wrote, let me mention that I *do*
have K-lite c-pack installed, yet I could not play your video either. I
don't have the *latest* K-lite, of course, just the last where ffdshow
has encoding choice settings; I had to un-install the later one.
Never, ever, expect people to use new-fangled ills, OK? Everybody
that matters uses XviD. Those that don't, don't. Who cares about
lossless *video* ?!?! I'd understand audio, and to a lesser extent,
photos, but video? Stuff and nonsense! Next you'll expect people to use
smartphones!
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
Industrial One
2012-03-12 06:02:45 UTC
Permalink
HAHAHAHA!!

Calm down dudes, what's the problem here?

Obviously I am much more adept at video technology than you guys as I
am an enthusiast in the field, just like you guys are with old OSes. I
see you don't cope well with role-reversal. You seem only capable of
modesty when you have an opportunity to lecture but not learn. Rather
anti-intellectual stance there, don'cha think?

Sometimes it seems to me its the only reason your kind frequents
groups and forums like these, searching for narcissistic validations
out of newbs.

Grow up, I had the balls to come here to admit I knew jack shit about
something and ask for directions. Now anyone who looks up to me for my
DVD and Blu-ray rips can find a reason not to look up to me anymore by
finding this thread and realizing I'm not omniscient. See how that
works?

Anyway...

1. There was a good reason I used a lossless codec for those specific
video clips I uploaded. The content was very redundant and the
resulting output files were 500 and 1500 KB respectively. Not so
massive like you assumed, right? If I used XviD, the output would've
been bigger and much worse quality as XviD would auto downsample the
colordepth to YV12 which would fuck up the once-vibrant colors. XviD
is for movies, not for computer screencaps.

2. x264 is state-of-the-art and kicks the shit out of XviD which I
normally use, and it also supports YV24 (RGB) colorspace but as said
before, even I have issues setting up MPC to play it back properly
because this feature is too modern and lacks widespread support, hence
I used a format that's easier to play back.

3. XviD is not in widespread usage anymore and shouldn't be, the
quality blows at reasonable bitrates and high quality requires
unreasonably high bitrates. Even YouTube doesn't use XviD anymore.
Even an eeePC can playback 720p H264 so if you really are concerned
with power consumption and efficiency, you'd best stop using XviD. My
i7 can playback 1080p with only one core, and my TDP is 95W.

4. All I hear is "we're using win98, it doesn't support all the latest
codecs n shit"! Well, that's your field. You are the classic OS
genius, figure out how to get the latest shit to work without it
needing to be a hassle if you insist on using an unsupported, outdated
system. I reject Vista and M$'s new era of bloatware garbage too, but
can't say XP is guilty of such a thang. You's be extremists. :(

But yeah, seriously. I uploaded XviD samples like you requested.
Prioritize your bitching, mang.
98 Guy
2012-03-12 23:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
4. All I hear is "we're using win98, it doesn't support all the
latest codecs n shit"! Well, that's your field. You are the
classic OS genius, figure out how to get the latest shit to
work without it needing to be a hassle
I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know what led to your
rant, and really it doesn't matter.

With regard to your comment (above) about x264 (or is it h264?) not
being compatible with win-98, I'm not sure who's saying that, but it's
probably someone here with an anemic PC (pentium 2, 300 mhz or some junk
like that) and who's never tried kernelex and VLC (that is probably
about half the people who read this win-98 newsgroup).

I do a lot of downloading and I'm seeing more video's (movies, tv-rips)
being posted as MPEG-4 (x264) and not xvid, and a lot of other people
are bitching about the end of Xvid in a lot of different forums (and I
don't know what their problem is), but win-98 and VLC can play 264 shit
no problem, and so can my NetGear EVA9150 (which is what I use to play
movies and TV episodes I download from torrents and file-lockers on my
TV).
Industrial One
2012-03-13 03:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by Industrial One
4. All I hear is "we're using win98, it doesn't support all the
latest codecs n shit"! Well, that's your field. You are the
classic OS genius, figure out how to get the latest shit to
work without it needing to be a hassle
I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know what led to your
rant, and really it doesn't matter.
They were helping me troubleshoot a DOS 6.22 problem and I uploaded
some screencaps to show the problem in a format Lostgallifreyan wasn't
able to play, so he got all sensitive and started bitching at me for
assuming he knew how to get them to play. I guess some people obtain
knowledge at the expense of social skills and offer help on forums for
narcissistic instead of altruistic reasons. or as I call them - dorks.
Post by 98 Guy
With regard to your comment (above) about x264 (or is it h264?) not
being compatible with win-98, I'm not sure who's saying that, but it's
probably someone here with an anemic PC (pentium 2, 300 mhz or some junk
like that) and who's never tried kernelex and VLC (that is probably
about half the people who read this win-98 newsgroup).
Most likely.
Post by 98 Guy
I do a lot of downloading and I'm seeing more video's (movies, tv-rips)
being posted as MPEG-4 (x264) and not xvid, and a lot of other people
XviD is MPEG-4 too, though it really should've been called MPEG-3. In
the ITU naming convention, XviD is the H.263 standard and MPEG-4 part
2 (ASP) is the ISO equivalent. Just like H.264 is MPEG-4 part 10
(AVC). I find the ITU terminology a lot simpler to follow. Don't
attempt to make sense out of them, I regret ever taking the time to do
so.
Post by 98 Guy
are bitching about the end of Xvid in a lot of different forums (and I
don't know what their problem is), but win-98 and VLC can play 264 shit
Problem is they are change-resistant fanboys who have no dick. Do
yourself a favor and don't attempt to understand them either, I regret
ever trying.
Hot-Text
2012-03-14 08:25:50 UTC
Permalink
98 Guy

I am the one here that Running MS-DOS 622,

I ask him to send the name of the Game,

Now he needs to Zip-File it,
and send to::

< http://hot-text.ath.cx/upload/ >

To see if have bugs in the DOS..


:/
Industrial One
2012-03-12 06:02:30 UTC
Permalink
HAHAHAHA!!

Calm down dudes, what's the problem here?

Obviously I am much more adept at video technology than you guys as I
am an enthusiast in the field, just like you guys are with old OSes. I
see you don't cope well with role-reversal. You seem only capable of
modesty when you have an opportunity to lecture but not learn. Rather
anti-intellectual stance there, don'cha think?

Sometimes it seems to me its the only reason your kind frequents
groups and forums like these, searching for narcissistic validations
out of newbs.

Grow up, I had the balls to come here to admit I knew jack shit about
something and ask for directions. Now anyone who looks up to me for my
DVD and Blu-ray rips can find a reason not to look up to me anymore by
finding this thread and realizing I'm not omniscient. See how that
works?

Anyway...

1. There was a good reason I used a lossless codec for those specific
video clips I uploaded. The content was very redundant and the
resulting output files were 500 and 1500 KB respectively. Not so
massive like you assumed, right? If I used XviD, the output would've
been bigger and much worse quality as XviD would auto downsample the
colordepth to YV12 which would fuck up the once-vibrant colors. XviD
is for movies, not for computer screencaps.

2. x264 is state-of-the-art and kicks the shit out of XviD which I
normally use, and it also supports YV24 (RGB) colorspace but as said
before, even I have issues setting up MPC to play it back properly
because this feature is too modern and lacks widespread support, hence
I used a format that's easier to play back.

3. XviD is not in widespread usage anymore and shouldn't be, the
quality blows at reasonable bitrates and high quality requires
unreasonably high bitrates. Even YouTube doesn't use XviD anymore.
Even an eeePC can playback 720p H264 so if you really are concerned
with power consumption and efficiency, you'd best stop using XviD. My
i7 can playback 1080p with only one core, and my TDP is 95W.

4. All I hear is "we're using win98, it doesn't support all the latest
codecs n shit"! Well, that's your field. You are the classic OS
genius, figure out how to get the latest shit to work without it
needing to be a hassle if you insist on using an unsupported, outdated
system. I reject Vista and M$'s new era of bloatware garbage too, but
can't say XP is guilty of such a thang. You's be extremists. :(

But yeah, seriously. I uploaded XviD samples like you requested.
Prioritize your bitching, mang.
Rugxulo
2012-03-30 21:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Industrial One
I managed to install Soundblaster finally (I hate having a thousand
choices) and figured out why the sound was cracking up. When I set
core affinity to 1 the sound stopped crackling and was perfect. What
does core affinity have to do with sound quality, does anybody know?
In what, Windows or DOSBox? I'm not big on Windows internals, but I
think DOSBox uses SDL, and later versions (1.3 ??) are multi-
threaded / multi-core or whatever for better performance, though
DOSBox itself isn't. So maybe?? that's why? (Confusing.)
Hot-Text
2012-03-08 16:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
I am not a Win98 user, I use XP, but I'm crossposting to the 98 group
because if there's anyone that would know about running old programs
on modern machines, I hope it to be you guys.
I was told that legacy DOS drivers are no longer made for modern mobos
as of like 5 years ago, but I constantly hear about nostalgic mofos
finding workarounds.
I do have a workaround which is DOSBox but it greatly slowed down the
performance. Indeed, only a weird motherfucker like me would go out my
way to emulate an EMULATOR and expect the FPS to be smooth. Its ironic
when I think that on the original platform it runs perfectly on 4 MHz
and my 3 GHz i7 can't run it in full FPS.
So yeah, any way to run my program natively or at least a way faster
than running it through DOSBox?
Name of the Game would help....

You have to go in to Command Prompt in Full Screen,
And Compatibility modes have to be Set to that game OS,
and you have the set the Buffer Size,
and the Number of buffers for that Game..
--
This post contains IPA phonetic symbols in Unicode.
Without proper rendering support,
you may see question marks, boxes,
or other symbols instead of Unicode characters.

User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-08 23:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
I am not a Win98 user, I use XP, but I'm crossposting to the 98 group
because if there's anyone that would know about running old programs
on modern machines, I hope it to be you guys.
I was told that legacy DOS drivers are no longer made for modern mobos
as of like 5 years ago, but I constantly hear about nostalgic mofos
finding workarounds.
I do have a workaround which is DOSBox but it greatly slowed down the
performance. Indeed, only a weird motherfucker like me would go out my
way to emulate an EMULATOR and expect the FPS to be smooth. Its ironic
when I think that on the original platform it runs perfectly on 4 MHz
and my 3 GHz i7 can't run it in full FPS.
So yeah, any way to run my program natively or at least a way faster
than running it through DOSBox?
If your hardware will run an OS that will run that program natively, that's
your best shot. This will mean you can't run it in a multitasking envornment
that also holds all your WXP stuff, but there are tools like Ghost that make
short work of shuttling OS images between disks, partitions and files. You
can also dual-boot.

The ideal virtual machine isn't a tool like DOSbox, good though that may be.
(I've seen it, I like it). Ideally it should run at LOW level. WIndows
'protected mode' for example, is a low lever virtual machine. It should
ideally run as close to the hardware as possible (in future there will no
doubt be a huge growth in virtual i386 machines running on ARM processors,
and such.)

If a lot of WXP is between you and the hardware, you will not get the same
performance you will get running a natively supporting OS. Nothing will get
round that. it may be better to get a KVM switch, and a cheap older computer
dedicated to running this task. Then you can use your keyboard to change the
mahine the keyboard, mouse and video get attached to with little more effort
that Alt_Tabbing between tasks. Just make sure that when each machine boots,
it 'owns' the monitor.
Lostgallifreyan
2012-03-08 23:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Industrial One
Its ironic
when I think that on the original platform it runs perfectly on 4 MHz
and my 3 GHz i7 can't run it in full FPS.
Which is also why we ned LOW level VM! :)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...