This belongs in the DOS Forum, not DOSBox. You didn't run it under DOSBox in the mentioned steps, did you?

Anyhow, it seems that he's expanded on Basti007's instructions:
http://home.earthlink.net/~infernofilecabinet … st/pandorad.htm

Wonder what the differences are. Haven't time to analyze it.

Upon further research, I think both pages distill information already found in VOGONS. Use the search to find strings like Pandora or UAKM. Not that anyone keeps score, but I believe our users/posters discovered this stuff first. Would be nice to see credit given where credit is due, but such is life...

😒 Scuse me? I did state at the start of my post that I wasn't sure if what I was doing was proper procedure in forum etiquette. As for it being in the WRONG forum, I thought the name VOGONS related to VERY OLD GAMES played ON NEW SYSTEMS, not old games using PERHAPS unnecessary software to emulate what is now outdated OS's on new machines.

The point being getting classic games to work on the latest PC's with minimal software interference and NOT the other way about.

And as far as for giving credit where its due, I was never taking any credit for the information I posted. It was stated in the original post that I found it (the info) in a search by Google. I've since found out that the guy's username was cubase (and I think his name might be Steve Metzler)

So if using the information that was provided in my post manages to get your classic game working (not with a Dosbox or clone, or with a command prompt window) but simply by clicking on an Icon on your desktop, go and find Mr Steve Metzler and give him the credit you think I'm looking for.

NUFF SAID!

Hello Werner from Croydon,

I think you have misinterpreted some of the remarks made by Stiletto. I read them a bit different from what you, but then I could be wrong as well.

When Stiletto says "This belongs in the DOS Forum, not DOSBox", I assume, that your post was original made in one of the DOSBox sub-sections of VOGONS? I am new to VOGONS too, so I am not sure how it works here, but in other forums, when a post (or a whole thread) is moved from one section of the forum to another, a little marker is left in the original forum saying something like "Moved: UAKM under windows???". The move, by a senior member (a moderator) is not done to irritate or pick on you, but to make it easier for the next person to find your post. And more importantly, to put it in a forum sub-section where there is better chance that it will be read/commented on/solved by people that are knowledgable in the specific line of questions.

Stilettos next remark, "You didn't run it under DOSBox in the mentioned steps, did you?", is a reply to your "I'm still new to this forums game". He is actually trying to teach you, the newcomer, how to pick the most suitable sub-section for your post. In reallity, I (and Stiletto?) could not care less, if it was posted in the sub-section dealing with how emulate a Roland MT-32 device, except it would annoy the Roland'ers, and your would not get the kind of response you where hoping for.

On the credit thing, I do not read it as picking on your. When I read your post, I thought it was pretty clear, that you had searched for, and found, a solution to your particular problem with UAHM, and now you wanted to share the good news by providing pointers to the Tex Murphy forum. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that - in fact it is the right thing to do ... Share and Enjoy!

Stilettos remarks (as I read them) are more directed at the poster (Cubase) in the Tex Murhpy forum, who appearently had conveniently "forgotten" to give credits to Basti007 and VOGONS. Stiletto appearently found the information and the format of it too identical to the information published by Basti007. So identical that it was highly unlikely to be an independent discovery.

I do not know the origins of Basti007's write-up, but at least s/he has the courtousy to include a "CREDITS GO TO ALL THOSE GREAT PEOPLE AT VOGONS, WHO MADE THIS SETUP WALKTHROUGH POSSIBLE!" at the end of his page. I see no such credit line in the posts made by Cubase.

Finally Werner, have a look at Stilettos stats (Joined: 2002-07-01 and Posts: 1074). Immediately that will tell you, that

1. S/he is a long time member of these forums.
2. S/he has not just been lurking but has been posting at a rate of ~2 posts per day.

The posting rate does not say anything about the quality of the posts, though, but even the most dim-witted forum member must run out of questions after 100 posts 😀 To figure out that kind of information, you would have to click on the info button to bring up Stilettos profile which conveniently includes a "Find all posts by Stiletto" feature.

Had you done this, you would have recognised Stilettos as a very senior member of the forums, and - I hope - started to doubt your immediate interpretation of her/his posts, and your feelings, before getting into a defensive position.

Nuff said - thanks for sharing the information Werner. I am sure I will use it when I get around to play my copy of UAKM.
--
MiniMax

Thanx for your reply (A bit more helpful for a newbie than Stilettos was), I don't have a problem with anyone telling me that I've done something incorrectly, it's the way it's done that I take exception to.

Anyway, There is still misunderstanding with regard to what I posted. I didn't find a solution to my problem. That's why I made the post in the first place. The digital sound is still non-existent and the playability in interactive mode is worse than useless. I was willing to accept that it was something I had done which is why I was hoping someone else could check out the information I had found, get the whole game working perfectly and let me know what I had done wrong.

I checked out the posts regarding UAKM when I joined and the subject header which Basti007 had posted would never have indicated it was anything to with my problem (There was a posting headed A problem with might & magic)???, I didn't read that one either.

I find it interesting that one of the things you didn't comment on was my statement that surely the idea is that we get the great classic games of the past to work in the latest OS's around (including XP) with the least interference possible, and not the other way around. (e.g. using software to make the new OS's think they're a 486/25mhz machine).

Thanks for trying to clarify the situation anyway

Werner

Wernerfromcroydon wrote:

I find it interesting that one of the things you didn't comment on was my statement that surely the idea is that we get the great classic games of the past to work in the latest OS's around (including XP) with the least interference possible, and not the other way around. (e.g. using software to make the new OS's think they're a 486/25mhz machine).

Running the games natively, that is directly on the host OS, is the most effective way of using the resources of the machine. And for some games and applications it can be done - normally with various tweaks.

But for other applications the host OS is simply not up to the task due to unsurmountable incompatibilities. I don't know the specifics of how to get UAKM to run with Windows XP, but I suspect it actually runs as a process inside the Windows XP component called NTVDM - NT Virtual DOS Machine. If so, it is already running in an emulated environment.

The problem with NTVDM is that it is a Microsoft NT/2K/XP specific solution to the general problem of running old games. It does nothing for the growing number of people using Linux and XBox, and the steady(?) number of people using Macintoshes.

I do not know exactly which emulators that are ported to which platforms, but DOSBox is ported to both Solaris, Linux and XBox, one of the Glide emulators (OpenGlide?) is ported to Mac, Bochs is ported to Windows/Linux/Mac, etc. In a couple of years, I expect DOSBox to be available on some high-end PDA.

Running very old games on new systems, will always be a nice hobby. The big, commercial software houses focus on new games on new systems in high volumes, and so does a certain, very popular, provider of an easy to use GUI operating system. Running VOGONS will always have a high percentage of people with odd systems, and a tendency to tinker and experiment with them. I do not know what drives the developers of DOSBox, Bochs, VDMSound, etc, but personally I see an intellectual challenge in getting a program to run multiple platforms. Sometimes this desire slows down the development of features that the end-users deem important, but that is how it is.

DOSBox has just recently bridged the gap between running real-mode, pre-1994 games, and have stepped into the land of runing protected-mode, post-1994 games. While current CPU's are adequate for emulating a pre-1994 environment, speed is a big issue for more demanding games (as you have discovered with UAKM). And the PDA's are not even close yet. But - in 2-3 years, we will have 5-6 GHz CPU's with 4 x hyperthreading, and then anything up to early DirectX games can be emulated in real-time on a desktop PC - regardless of the underlying OS.

Personally, I prefer the emulation route, because it promises us the hopy grail of "write once, run anywhere". And I can almost touch it now!
--
MiniMax

Another tidbit in favour of full emulators:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12552
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14407