Since dosbox is just a regular windows application I don't see why it would not work. Of course you can't be totally sure until you try 😀

The 32bit versions of Vista will run 16bit applications just fine. The question is if the Vista NTVDM will be just as compatible as the XP NTVDM. NTVDM hasn't changed much throughout the years so I'm sure it will be just as compatible as XP's NTVDM tho.

Hi there. I have tried to launch Warcraft II with the DOSbox 0.63 at a 700-Mhz - orientated pc. The result wasn't very successful 😀)), 'cause it was very slow. I've tried to catch the proper cycle and skipped frame numbers, but it was still slow... I wish you could recommend me something...

Try the dynamic core, and perhaps a cvs build with the rendering patch.

I used to have speed problems running QuickBasic in XP but only if a Windows program was also running or if multiple QB IDE's were open. The problem was the amount of CPU XP would dedicate to QB, 99 freakin' percent. The problem was easily solved by setting the priority of NTVDM to low. I made a batch file to open all QB IDE's that way, so I wouldn't have to redo this setting each time I rebooted. Anyway, this is just a shot in the dark, but maybe making changing your DOSBox setting to a lower prioity would help? It might be worth a try. Just run DOSBox, open the Task Manager, find the DOSBox application, right click on it, and change the priority to something like below normal or low. I have noticed that some of the settings will not be accepted and will cause your system to freeze. You then need to reboot and try again. Like I stated, this is a shot in the dark and someone else will probably have a better answer.

Pete

To iampiti and DosFreak, thank you for both or your replies.

I hope we do get to hear from someone who has a Vista Beta, too. My assumption is that it should work, but I hate assumptions. They have a nasty almost Murphy's Law way of coming back to bite you.

A few of the links to articles I found today about on Vista>

http://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/?p=205

http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2 … /16/513402.aspx

A quote form the link above:

"But barring that, Microsoft's made a strong commitment to not break customers applications. The good thing is that it means that the Windows platform is remarkably stable. Many applications written for Windows 1.0 still run on Windows Vista. It means that corporations that have made an investment in technology aren't going to lose that investment by moving to a newer version of Windows. It also means that every version of Windows carries forward the designs from previous versions."

http://forums.sudhian.com/messageview.cfm?cat … 1&enterthread=y

Personally, I can recall all the stories, anxiety, and conjecture that surrounded the release of Windows 95. Some even said DOS would be dead with that release; so, I tend not to get too involved until I actually get my hands on the product. Frankly, from the discussion of Vista simply as a new OS, I do not see the good in it. We will all need FLASH chip technology to get it to boot before bedtime. Many say that 512 MB simply is not enough to run it, that 2GB would be a better bet. It appears to be bloated and a real resource hog. The simulated 3-D display, I could care less. Functionality has always been #1 with me. I think that is why with 25 years of computer experience, I still rank DOS and Windows 95 as my too favorite systems to work in.

Thanks and great forum by the way, first time I have seen it.

Pete

You can't judge Vista by posts on the internet. (Even mine 😉 ).

That second quote you posted is full of exagerations and misinformation. These people are judging a BETA and not being very objecting about it either. I mean really....Windows 95 as a favorite? Did anybody like Windows 95? Really? I didn't think so.

Best bet as always is to wait until the product actually makes it to market and then wait for the reviews. I haven't kept up with the latest betas of Vista so I'm not sure if it's entered RC (Release Candidate) stage or not. (That basically means that the features of Vista are frozen unless some major change comes about).

From a Vista beta I tried some time ago 16bit applications ran fine in the 32bit versions of Vista. I haven't tested a newer build of Vista for quite some time but I have talked to many people who have tried the latest builds of Vista and their 16bit programs run too.

With that said....NTVDM is a joke if your concerned about gaming and it's a mess if you need to actually use it for resource demanding work related purposes. DosBox is your best bet and since DosBox is 32bit it runs fine in Vista (at least it ran fine on the last build of Vista I tried it on), and if it DosBox doesn't work on Vista when Vista is released then you can be sured that the DosBox developers will make DosBox work. 😀

Not to mention that an emulator such as DOSBox will be the only way to run 16 bit programs in 64 bit Vista. DOSBox runs great in 64 bit XP, so I would expect it to run very well in both 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista. And as DosFreak said, if there is any trouble running it by the time Vista is released, expect it to be fixed.

Decided to load up Vista Beta 1 again just to test DosBox for the above Poster.

Boy was that fun....NOT. heh.

Anyways DosBox 0.65 RC2 works just fine in Windows Vista Beta 1 under Microsoft Virtual Server 2005.

If you define "just fine" as incredibly slow......this is due more to Vista under Virtual Server than anything else so it's hard to judge actual DosBox speed. Windows Vista crawls under Virtual Server on my XP 2800+ and no, I'm not gonna install Vista on my real hardware.....at least not until I get my hands on the FEB CTP.