Agreed, most of the people complaining that DosBox is too slow:
Do not read the documentation.
1. Don't know about Frameskip or Cycles.
2. Don't know about normal/full/dynamic cores.
Therefore it would be the same with VESA. Those who complain would be the same ones who don't bother to read. If they post we simply post a link to the readme/wiki, and close the thread.
I think Windows 3.1 in 16bit VESA would be fast enough too.
wrote:I think Windows 3.1 in 16bit VESA would be fast enough too.
Just a small correction: Windows 3.1 does not use VESA standard. They require a support for a specific graphic card (S3 in case of DOSBOX).
Mirek
wrote:wrote:I think Windows 3.1 in 16bit VESA would be fast enough too.
Just a small correction: Windows 3.1 does not use VESA standard. They require a support for a specific graphic card (S3 in case of DOSBOX).
Mirek
My patch works at the chip level. Although I don't have much of an idea what I did, I did use the one S3 register relating to bit depth. So it may be possible that 16-bit works with the S3 driver (if the S3 driver works at all - didn't try win3.1 yet). If anyone knows more, I'd be happy to hear about it.
Hello!
Just downloaded Moe's patch for 16-bit VESA support (dosbox-vesa16bit-20050629.diff exactly). Becasue I'm a total beginner when it comes to patching diff files, I completely don't know how to do that. For example, WinMerge seems to just compare files instead of actual using diff file or I do something wrong. Please help!
