Yes, eventually Windows 3.11 should be fully supported. But it will be a while. 😀

wow, that was fast, and a big relief. thanks snover!

uhm mouse support for win3.11 isn't that hard.

(it's ready to go in to the offical cvs)

it would only mean a new option in the configuration file

and i wonder if windows is worth a complete option.

One thing that just popped into my head. You think Windows 9x will be runnable someday in DOSBox?

It's possible, but it's unlikely.

I think it makes sense to have DosBox only support Windows 3.x for now.

If someone wants to add support for Windows 9x without breaking the usability of DosBox then I'm all for it but that project should be far down the list game compatibility should ALWAYS come first. Some would argue that there are Windows 9x games which need emulation to work properly (old DX games which don't work in NT), well yes but there are FAR more DOS games than Windows games that need to be fixed before we start worrying about Windows.

I would have to agree with DosFreak: would be nice down the road, but not until pure DOS support is more fleshed out. There are a lot of things that could be improved/added still before taking on such ambitious tasks.

Also, most Win9x games that don't work in WinXP (yeah yeah, gross generalizations, blah blah) had an equivilant DOS version, with the Windows interpreter usually being an afterthought (7th Guest, 11th Hour, Constructor, Sierra SCI...).

Qbix wrote:

uhm mouse support for win3.11 isn't that hard. (it's ready to go in to the offical cvs) it would only mean a new option in the c […]
Show full quote

uhm mouse support for win3.11 isn't that hard.
(it's ready to go in to the offical cvs)
it would only mean a new option in the configuration file
and i wonder if windows is worth a complete option.

YES. 😀 I think that 16 bit Windows (3.x) support belongs to DOSBOX.

Mirek

Windows 3x support in DOSBox would be great for when Windows x64 comes out, since 16 bit stuff does not run at all on it. DOSBox or some other emulator will be required if you'll want to run any 16 bit code.

Don't expect win9x ever to work good under dosbox, there are
several points that won't (ever) work, especially when it comes
to segment faults (limit checking etc.) and page faults.

wd

If you are a little handy, you can run Win95/Win98 as a guest OS in Bochs with WinXP as the host.

(screen dump for any non-believers out there)

How fast does it run MiniMax? I've heard Bochs is very slow.

Bochs is just as fast (or slow) as DOSBox, since it emulates all the CPU instructions unlike Virtual PC/VMware where (AFAIK) large portions of the code is run directly by the real CPU (much like NTVDM).

This is not very sciencetific, but it is something: A little QBASIC program, run in 3 different environments:

110 PRINT TIME$
220 x# = 3.1415
330 FOR i = 1 TO 10000
440 x# = x# + SIN(x#)
550 NEXT
660 PRINT TIME$

Bochs: 11 seconds
DOSBox: 25 seconds
WinXP: 0.13 seconds

I see. Unfortunately Dosbox runs DOS games requiring comparatively little processing power. Windows 95 / 98 requires much more. How usable in Windows 95 / 98 under Bochs realistically? How fast does it feel?

MiniMax wrote:

Bochs: 11 seconds
DOSBox: 25 seconds
WinXP: 0.13 seconds

YEAY DOSBOX IS THE SLOWEST CLEARLY IT SUCKS DONKEY BALLS EVERYONE GO USE SOMETHING ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111one

(I'm just doing it before the trolls do. Or maybe I am a troll. Bizarre...😜)

P.S. I apologise gratuitously for hijacking this thread.

/kick Snover

Don't autorejoin either ya rude bastard!

/kick DosFreak

There, the status quo has returned 😀 Now back to the point 😀

bah, DosBox for playing games is better than bochs. The way I see it, why spend all your time setting up the emulator when you can just get right into gaming. Also, DosBox has something that Bochs prolly never will have: active development! Give DosBox some time and it'll become a powerhouse 😀 DosBox is the only prog I have in which you can actually see a difference with each release. Speaking of which, who here actually has a hand in writing DosBox? Is it just QBix?

-Brian