While I'm still thinking about it: any solutions that require a driver being installed absolutely require an amd64 native driver, which leaves out MIDI Yoke and anything like it (that I can find).

If I could somehow hammer an i386 driver into an amd64 kernel, the best thing that would probably happen is instant kernel panic.

???

Download Timidity+ and a nice soundfont, start Timidity before starting DOSBox, enjoy MIDI sound on Win7 x64. Where's the problem?

I'm sure you can find more detailed instructions on VOGONS. Btw: what you call "i386 drivers" (you're using the terms incorrectly and mixing them up) actually can be installed on a x64 OS, by enabling the Windows "Test Mode" which allows installing unsigned drivers.

rmenessec wrote:

I can't convert SoundFont or GUS or anything else to DLS.

IIRC the utility "AWave" can convert from most anything (including soundfonts) to DLS format. But (again, IIRC), the result of the SF2 to DLS conversion was a nightmare with really horrid sound (out of tune notes, incorrect instruments, etc...).

ADDiCT wrote:

Download Timidity+ and a nice soundfont, start Timidity before starting DOSBox, enjoy MIDI sound on Win7 x64. Where's the problem?

Some might consider it a problem that the TM++ project doesn't actually provide Win32 builds, much less Win64. Also, I'm trying to reduce the amount of ancient Win32 code on my computers; not increase it. Semi-supported unofficial builds seem to be thin on the ground at best, not to mention painfully outdated. Also, nice soundfont: could you mention some? With links? I believe I was clear they're not easy to come by.

Finally, DOSBox & TM++: this simple search returns one irrelevant link. Go ahead, try it. I'll wait. https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=s … +timidity%2B%2B

ADDiCT wrote:

I'm sure you can find more detailed instructions on VOGONS.

Yes. I found more detailed instructions. They required installing MIDI Yoke or some similar "virtual MIDI patch cable" to connect DOSBox MIDI output to TM++. All these drivers are i386 code. That's why I posted the question in the first place: no one seems to have softsynth working on a Win64 OS, not counting WINE running on amd64 Linux.

ADDiCT wrote:

Btw: what you call "i386 drivers" (you're using the terms incorrectly and mixing them up)

I am not. Since I spent a lot of time on search engines, including VOGONS', before asking this series of questions, perhaps you could return the favour.

ADDiCT wrote:

actually can be installed on a x64 OS, by enabling the Windows "Test Mode" which allows installing unsigned drivers.

Assuming it works, which I won't test, that would be an incredibly bad idea. Since the reason obviously wasn't apparent: then anyone else can download the Windows SDK, sign anything they feel like with the Test certificate, and in many cases convince Windows to install and/or execute the resulting code with no prompting whatever. If you like r00ted boxes, that's your own lookout.

Test Mode should not be available at all in Windows NT6, any release.

But then, driver signing shouldn't have been enforced in Windows NT6, any release, either.

rfnagel wrote:

rmenessec wrote:

I can't convert SoundFont or GUS or anything else to DLS.

IIRC the utility "AWave" can convert from most anything (including soundfonts) to DLS format. But (again, IIRC), the result of the SF2 to DLS conversion was a nightmare with really horrid sound (out of tune notes, incorrect instruments, etc...).

Yes, most of the search results I found indicated that any "successful" conversions were terrifying at best. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing what you might call "a hell of a lot" of DLS sound banks for sale, or I might just go that route and invest the time ripping the terrible licensed Roland bank out of Windows.

(Roland: not necessarily terrible. Roland 3MB licensed bank for Windows >= NT5.1: terrible.)

rmenessec wrote:

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing what you might call "a hell of a lot" of DLS sound banks for sale

Yes, unfortunately it really seems that decent DLS banks are few and far between. BTW, if you decide to go the soundfont route one way or another, you might try my own custom SF2 -> Weeds General MIDI SoundFont v3.0

Windows 7 + DOSBox MIDI = Problems!

robertmo wrote:

Windows 7 + DOSBox MIDI = Problems!

I found this thread, too. The only MIDI mapper ever displayed is the default Microsoft wavetable synth driver, so I can't switch output to TM++. If the TM++ project ever starts producing Win64 builds-- and most critically an amd64 driver --let me know.

I spent hours with TM++ before I posted asking if there was even a commercial solution.

TM++ runs under amd64-compiled Windows. The best information I can find is that it can't be used without an amd64-compiled MIDI driver, or MIDI mapping driver. If someone finds a workaround with clear, simple instructions, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Until then, I guess I'll be looking for commercial DLS banks.

Seeing that you obviously don't need any help because you already know everything I won't bother trying to help. I'll play some DOS games instead on my Windows 7 x64, with great MIDI sound provided by Timidity+ in combination with a good soundfont. Maybe I'll use my Xbox 360 controller to play, which is configured to use the XBCD (unsigned) driver and which works great for gaming and emulation. I'm so glad I'm not a specialist like you, using all those nifty tech terms, but merely someone who gets sh*t to work.

Or the OP can run a 32-bit version of Windows 7. I don't know why people are so adamant about running 64-bit Windows and trying to get old sh!t to work.

You can run SB Live on 7.Look for Daniel_K drivers,they are on Creative's forum

Or the OP can run a 32-bit version of Windows 7. I don't know why people are so adamant about running 64-bit Windows and trying to get old sh!t to work.

This thread is obviously where IT specialists meet. Hint: it's 2010. 4GB of RAM is pretty much standard by now for "normal" computers, a little low for gaming rigs. Question: how much RAM can be adressed by the x86 versions of Windows?

ADDiCT wrote:

Hint: it's 2010. 4GB of RAM is pretty much standard by now for "normal" computers, a little low for gaming rigs. Question: how much RAM can be adressed by the x86 versions of Windows?

What does that have to do with anything? The OS and amount of RAM required for a task is the OS and amount of RAM required for the task. You run the operating system for the task, not the other way around. You wouldn't complain that a Mac doesn't run OS/2 apps or a Linux box doesn't run Mac apps.

If running the 64-bit version of something doesn't accomplish the task at hand, but 32-bit does, you run 32-bit. I never understood why some people are insistent on running 64-bit Windows when the application doesn't work correctly with it. 64-bit Windows can't also run 16-bit apps. What advice would you give somebody who had that one 16-bit app they needed to run?

VM. For everything else, x64 is working very well usually. The main problem(s) with old apps are not because of the 64-bit OS per se, but because of the changes Windows in general went through in its two recent incarnations (security stuff, removal of certain subsystems, etc.). But who am I telling this, you're obviously an IT expert just like the OP, and I am just a humble gamer (; .

Oh, and: there is no such thing as "RAM required for a task". In theory, you can run Photoshop CS5 and edit huge RAW pics with 512 MB of RAM, but it won't be much fun of course. Does that mean you would use a machine with 512 MB RAM for photo editing? RAM is like Sex: there's no such thing as "too much" RAM/Sex (; .

A little bit more on topic: a VM could also be used for running emulators... But as I've already said, for the problem described in the OP it's not necessary.

ADDiCT: Understood.

Like everything, it's hammer - meet nail. As opposed to wrench meet nail. Right tool for the right job, regardless of OS, RAM or age. 😉

I really wish Fluidsynth had better Windows support so we don't have to use buggy old laggy Timidity++.

ADDiCT wrote:

Oh, and: there is no such thing as "RAM required for a task". In theory, you can run Photoshop CS5 and edit huge RAW pics with 512 MB of RAM, but it won't be much fun of course. Does that mean you would use a machine with 512 MB RAM for photo editing? RAM is like Sex: there's no such thing as "too much" RAM/Sex (; .

Not really, the bare minimum, according to their specs is 1gb...and they're most definitely not kidding...it tends to crash (more so than usual) with less RAM than the reqs. (*if* you can install it at all...I recall the installer checking for the amount of RAM...but there was a workaround)
I agree with the second part, though 😜

As for 16 bit apps...come on, it's 2010...as stated above.
The only 16 bit app I recall needing lately is the Get Medieval installer...and you can copy the files by hand...oh...and some Borland DB installer for a map app I have...that runs happily inside a 32-bit XP VM