Re: Virtual PC now free
Posted on 2006-07-17, 10:27
Not too surprising though, VirtualPC isn't really meant for games. Whereas our beloved little app around here..
Re: Universal Binary for OS X?
Posted on 2006-07-05, 02:02
Aww, no love for the OS X version, it seems. :( Well, not from me either, I must confess... I still don't want to install Windows via boot camp to run speed tests (going to wait until Vista). However, I have recently downloaded a universal binary of something called SDLMame (some sort of Mame port …
Re: Fullscreen is cut-off : Undocumented Letterbox Mode
Posted on 2006-07-04, 06:55
Out of curiosity are you using an LCD monitor that's native resolution is 1280x1024? If so that's normal. Your monitor's 5:4, most older monitors and most other resolutions are 4:3. So your screen IS a bit taller than the game would be.
Re: Editing AUTOEXEC.BAT
Posted on 2006-05-23, 21:44
You adjust your autoexec.bat by editing the config file. You'll find the spot you need at the bottom typically.
Re: Universal Binary for OS X?
Posted on 2006-04-24, 10:00
I seem to remember something about Apple optimizing OSX for a small memory foot print over performance optimizations. Then again, maybe the x86 version of Darwin isn't as well optimized for the hardware as it is for PPC. Hmm? Everywhere I've read about OS X performance since I got my Macbook, …
Re: Universal Binary for OS X?
Posted on 2006-04-23, 21:51
Then again, Tycho on PA saw a 25-50% increase in FPS in World of Warcraft when using boot camp to run it from Windows. I hope OS X can go much faster, but I guess it's just that simply nobody noticed before because there were no good ways to compare. The FPS increase is explicitly tied to Apple's …
Re: Universal Binary for OS X?
Posted on 2006-04-18, 21:10
For most apps not directly optimized for multiple processors (and this goes for dual core systems as well), you're likely to see the performance load fairly evenly divided among the processors. In general two processors/cores/etc is only a drastic improvement when the app is built multithreaded and …
Re: About TCP/IP
Posted on 2006-04-17, 01:53
It's an open source program so it's certainly a possibility. However as it says, it's not needed for games. The devs in general put priority on game support above everything else since that is the primary purpose of the emulator.
Re: Universal Binary for OS X?
Posted on 2006-04-15, 16:45
And people still listed why there's no universal of .65. No one's made it and submitted it. I currently build dosbox myself with the dependencies provided by darwinports, which aren't built universal and I've not a clue how to force them to be. (Or if you can) So building a universal would demand I …
Re: Universal Binary for OS X?
Posted on 2006-04-14, 21:11
Compiling a universal build requires quite a bit of extra work and awareness, a fair bit of which is over my head honestly. I don't even know how to make a build with static libraries so that I can just post it and the person could run it without also installing the same SDL libraries I used! On top …
Re: Emulation for PlayStation2
Posted on 2006-04-11, 01:18
Certainly doable (especially with the linux kit!) but I wouldn't expect great performance.
Re: "No CPU emulation" mode?
Posted on 2006-03-28, 01:40
You mean running a virtualized processor instead of emulated - say if you're using an x86 machine accessing the real processor directly? If so then no, as that'd take a lot of work, but performance wise the dynamic core is kinda close to what you're asking.
Re: Latest Mac CVS?
Posted on 2006-03-26, 19:07
That's the basic plan. But I'm also trying to make it so that whoever uses it will hopefully learn what they're doing too a bit and not just be blindly copying commands into the terminal. 🤣
Re: Latest Mac CVS?
Posted on 2006-03-25, 02:14
Compiling it on Mac OS X really does take minimal programing knowledge. I've been meaning to cleanup and post a guide on it myself but I continue to put it off because I'm lazy, really lazy. (I'm also too lazy to lean how to make a statically linked self sufficient binary..)
Re: Latest Mac CVS?
Posted on 2006-03-24, 04:24
I don't know of any out there right now, however you can fairly easily compile it yourself. Especially if you use darwinports to get the dependencies.
Re: Universal Binary for OS X?
Posted on 2006-03-21, 00:20
Some people use x11 apps still, especially if they really like'em. However don't be confused, it's not needed at all to compile dosbox for Mac OS X.
Re: Universal Binary for OS X?
Posted on 2006-03-20, 18:17
I'd love to help but alas I've just got a PPC Mac mini here.
Re: Universal Binary for OS X?
Posted on 2006-03-18, 23:03
That's the best solution in general for being up to date. Last I checked (and this was just with the dev machines), dosbox compiled fine, you just needed a small patch to get the dynamic core working properly.
Re: The Mac OS X download is empty.
Posted on 2006-03-11, 21:03
Indeed, it works in Stuff-it 9. Here's it repackaged with zip format as for the life of me I can't remember WHERE I found Stuff-it 9.
Re: The Mac OS X download is empty.
Posted on 2006-03-11, 02:14
Quite peculiar, though I'm inclined to blame Stuff-it 10. I've had nothing but trouble with it, I wound up downgrading to 9 because 10 couldn't open a few other archives properly and 9 could!
Page 1 of 6