Is munt windows 98 compatibel?

Developer's Forum for discussion of bugs, code, and other developmental aspects of the Munt Project.

Re: Is munt windows 98 compatibel?

Postby sergm » 2017-9-10 @ 17:02

In the mean time, it doesn't seem to be too hard to run mt32emu-qt on Windows 9x. It seems like Qt versions prior to 4.6.0 retained Windows 9x compatibility. There are only a few changes required to compile it with the minimal set of audio drivers using MinGW. Uploaded a test build. Again, it requires MIDI Yoke or the likes to route MIDI from e.g. DOSBox or a MIDI player to the synth.
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 712
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: Is munt windows 98 compatibel?

Postby 95DosBox » 2017-9-15 @ 13:48

sergm wrote:Wait a minute. I don't get the point if this is about running games in DOSBox under Windows 98. All you need is to add mt32emu library right into DOSBox. I'm sure there are DOSBox builds Win9x compatible around already.

Besides, I don't think it is enough to have just an Intel CPU to run Windows 9x on a modern PC. USB audio is likely OK, but which video drivers do you use? When I tried windows 98 on my notebook I got nothing more than 800x600x16 video mode, quite disappointing. Perhaps, it would be better if VESA modes were supported but I doubt this is always the case. Sorry, but I only see the point to run Windows 98 on supported hardware where you don't even need to use DOSBox. And unlucky, such hardware does not seem to be powerful enough for mt32emu engine to work in real time. Hence, I still see no need to bother with compatibility.

And indeed, there are tons of Windows PE builds around (for example, I used to use REATOGO in old times) that allows you to run XP from a USB drive (and of course from a CD). Actually, I think running Windows 7 PE is even easier. And I don't see the point to run exactly Windows at all. You can easily set up a Linux box, and DOSBox will run just fine there. Either with official munt packages or again compiled into DOSBox. The latter would look more convenient for me personally if I wanted to play games. I think a Linux box provides wast majority of advantages compared to an XP PE or Windows 7 PE builds (not mentioning Win9x which likely lacks drivers for newer hardware).

So, no, I don't get the point. For me, Windows 98 changes nothing in the sense of portable gaming.


To address the DOSBOX issue you are having. I've sifted through and tested over 50 Demos but focused on the ones that could run under just the Command Prompt in XP, later I did more testing in 98 and it could run under its DOS Prompt but use the MS Roland GS Wavetable Synth natively without the need of using DOSBOX. But of course most of the instruments are awful sounding since it's not a MT-32.

The laptop might not be the most suitable device to use for 98 but a Desktop can add the video cards for the drivers unless you got a real old laptop during the P3/P4 era then some older Intel Graphics might work. But there is a Bear Windows driver but I'm not sure if this driver will work for DOSBOX in your situation but it does allow higher than 16 Colors and DOSBOX seems to like 256 colors or more to work properly.

http://bearwindows.zcm.com.au/vbe9x.htm

But the Demos I have consolidated in this new thread post.
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=55981

They should work in 98 using the DOS Prompt inside 98 not "REAL DOS". The only exception is Dune 2 which didn't seem to work properly except using DOSBOX or running in "REAL DOS".

Some DOS programs will not run properly inside the 98 DOS Prompt but you need the MUNT98 to do the MT-32 emulation so you can't go to "REAL DOS" yet unless you've found a way to port this to work under "REAL DOS" then that would be a breakthrough and if running under "REAL DOS" you won't need to deal with the video drivers but just a USB sound card DOS driver.

There are probably more DOS programs that will run "outside of DOSBOX" but if your MUNT98 can be seamlessly integrated into 98 so the DOS programs can use MUNT in the background without DOSBOX that might decrease the CPU load. The really older titles play well using the 98 "Dos Prompt". Or if you are simply listening to MIDI files they could use another MIDI software player as long as 98 recognizes MUNT as the MIDI output device.

The XP and W7 USB method with PEs I haven't tested and how are you dealing with the display drivers for PE to get DOSBOX to work? Which XP and W7 PEs are you using and how large are each? Also the larger size of those two OS might pose a problem forcing you to get a larger USB flash drive. XP is smaller at around 2GB but the W7 64-bit will be around 16GB or more. The 98 could be around 500MB for full size but if compacted to its bare essentials it could be much smaller maybe under 100MB leaving more room on the USB device for storage.

This site seems to show a 58MB possibility or 51MB if no Swap File although I haven't tested that out.
http://www.litepc.com/98micro.html

XP requires activation so I'm not sure how you will get around that hurdle of a potential disabling of the OS one day where 98 seems to install as many times without any activation time limit. But for ease of use I agree XP seems to have it all.

The most portable you could get is "REAL DOS" < 1MB but until such a MUNT and DOSBOX port could happen 98 is the next best choice at the moment as far as size and compatibility.

<<Sorry, but I only see the point to run Windows 98 on supported hardware where you don't even need to use DOSBox. And unlucky, such hardware does not seem to be powerful enough for mt32emu engine to work in real time. Hence, I still see no need to bother with compatibility.>>

The 98 can run on the latest Intel chipset so far and the problem with the newer chipsets is going to be the lack of ISA slots (the need for DOSBOX) but the newer chipsets can handle more of the CPU burden. The emulation seems to be almost like a real MT-32 so is there any further way to optimize MUNT so it isn't so demanding?

It seems odd that the built in MS Roland GS Wavetable Synth barely uses any resources in comparison and I tested it down to 800MHz. Could a limited non programmable MT-32 Synth that overwrites the MS Roland GS Wavetable instruments only be done? It wouldn't be perfect but the instruments would sound better for static MT-32 games.

What about a better 98 MIDI mapper replacement?
User avatar
95DosBox
Member
 
Posts: 298
Joined: 2017-5-23 @ 09:34

Re: Is munt windows 98 compatibel?

Postby sergm » 2017-9-15 @ 14:39

Congratulations, you've really managed to confuse me :)

So, let's start over. What is your ultimate goal? Do you want to run MT32 emulation in DOS, Windows 9x, XP or Vista+? Or everywhere? Do you want your games just to run a bit faster with Windows 9x? I'm really confused.

See, there are many problems with all those things you tried to describe. I hope I can add some clarification.

1. DOSBox is a really good thing for running DOS games. Accept that. Some people do want to build a native DOS environment and play "fair". It's their right and their love. But I'm afraid most gamers do not want to even reboot to play. So, a new PC with DOSBox on a modern OS is essentially what they want. Try not to fix what isn't broken ;)

2. If this is about running old games in a real DOS with MT-32 emulated, there are way too many problems. The emulation is quite demanding due to objective reasons on the one hand, and most of the old games require you to slow down the system on the other hand. If you disable CPU cache, you can forget about emulation in real time. Indeed, hardware of modern PCs are even less supported in pure DOS, btw. Are you sure your USB audio will work with SB emulation? I doubt it. You'll need a VCPI driver that emulates both SB and MPU-401 (yes, this one too!). Many MT-32 related games require MPU-401 in the intelligent mode, so SoftMPU project exists. Perhaps, we can join efforts and add actual emulation of MT-32 core, no idea. One thing is clear: there are a lot of effort to make this real for almost no reason.

3. Similar things apply if you want MT-32 emulation in Windows 9x DOS session. There must be a VxD driver that monitors accesses to hardware ports of SB (if you don't have a real SB of course) and MPU-401, and routes the data to the corresponding Windows drivers. AFAIK, the existing driver for routing MPU-401 ports does not work in the intelligent mode, but not 100% sure. There was a topic in VDMSound dev forum about but I'm not aware how did it go and what's the result. Again, there is a timing issue with old games in this environment. Besides, timer emulation just sucks. All these problems (and more) are already solved successfully in DOSBox.

4. In Windows 9x you can say good bye to all the cores except just one of your brand new multicore CPU. A pity. Even a dual core CPU easily handles the performance problem on Windows XP+ and Linux boxes. mt32emu works fine on a modern smartphone, so why one would need to optimise the existing mt32emu engine? I'm sure this is possible but the goal is different.

5. In Windows PE environment, the activation problem you are so scared of does not exist. You can easily add any video, audio or network drivers as soon as they are available. Indeed, you don't need a big flash drive. Windows X PE builds are considerably smaller than a full installation. Windows Vista+ PE is also far less than 16Gb as it is stored compressed in a WIM image. Same is with most of Linux "live" distros.

6. The wavetable synth built in Windows is faster because it does not synthesize the wave samples, it uses them from the table. Besides, it is not cross platform and heavily optimised. There are a lot of MT-32 "emulations" around that are much less demanding but this is not what we want to achieve with munt ;)

7. Why DOSBox needs ISA slots? All this becomes weirder and weirder...
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 712
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: Is munt windows 98 compatibel?

Postby gdjacobs » 2017-9-15 @ 14:58

I can see this being somewhat useful for those with real hardware to run DOS titles on one machine and high CPU late DOS titles/Win9x titles on another. The Win98 box could run synth for the DOS machine using a gameport MIDI adapter with no need for another more modern system.
User avatar
gdjacobs
l33t
 
Posts: 3924
Joined: 2015-11-03 @ 05:51
Location: The Great White North

Re: Is munt windows 98 compatibel?

Postby sergm » 2017-9-15 @ 15:06

Yep, sure. Besides, it seems that I can pull off the 16-bit Windows 9x driver. Found a free C++ complier from M$ in Windows ME DDK 8)
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 712
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: MUNT is now Windows 98 Compatible

Postby 95DosBox » 2017-9-16 @ 09:29

sergm wrote:Congratulations, you've really managed to confuse me :)

So, let's start over. What is your ultimate goal? Do you want to run MT32 emulation in DOS, Windows 9x, XP or Vista+? Or everywhere? Do you want your games just to run a bit faster with Windows 9x? I'm really confused.


SergM, I have replied to your posting in depth but I have moved it to my thread to avoid hijacking "Nic-93's" thread any further as the answer to his question is now true that MUNT is 98 finally compatible through my testing of your latest 9-11 build.

My full response is here. :evil:
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=55981&p=613378#p613378
User avatar
95DosBox
Member
 
Posts: 298
Joined: 2017-5-23 @ 09:34

Re: MUNT is now Windows 98 Compatible

Postby sergm » 2017-9-16 @ 11:54

95DosBox wrote:SergM, I have replied to your posting in depth but I have moved it to my thread to avoid hijacking "Nic-93's" thread any further as the answer to his question is now true that MUNT is 98 finally compatible through my testing of your latest 9-11 build.

Well, munt isn't fully compatible atm but I'm working on it... ;)
sergm
Oldbie
 
Posts: 712
Joined: 2011-2-23 @ 16:37

Re: Is munt windows 98 compatibel?

Postby 95DosBox » 2017-9-16 @ 12:04

Yep, sure. Besides, it seems that I can pull off the 16-bit Windows 9x driver. Found a free C++ complier from M$ in Windows ME DDK 8)

Wait what isn't fully compatible at the moment and what's not working? It seems working only with DOSBOX in conjuction with the MIDIYOKE program but MUNT98 needs to work in the DOS Prompt Window also similar to the Windows XP Command Prompt. I've added more ideas to improve MUNT98 and MUNT in general in my thread. Also what did you mean by this statement? Is the current condition of MUNT98 more of stand alone app that must be run manually as I have been doing whereas the XP version is always running in the background as a process which is why it works inside Command Prompt instead of needing DOSBOX?
User avatar
95DosBox
Member
 
Posts: 298
Joined: 2017-5-23 @ 09:34

Previous

Return to MT-32 Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests