Not read the entire thread, but have you tried running it in pure DOS mode?

Joakim wrote on 2022-04-12, 20:23:

Not read the entire thread, but have you tried running it in pure DOS mode?

Was thinking the same since it is an unusual thing, but I never got problem running that game within Windows.

In the early 90's most games were not speed sensitive, but those that were generally expected 386 class performance. A Pentium 1 is roughly similar to a 386DX33 with L1 cache disable.

There are some games from the late 80s that expected a turbo XT, and a couple more that run bust on a 386sx machine. You can use moslow - a software slowdown tool - to approximate those speeds. In my experience it works pretty well. You will want to slow down as much as you can first using setmul and a lower bus speed for the best results.

Joakim wrote on 2022-04-12, 20:23:

Not read the entire thread, but have you tried running it in pure DOS mode?

Yes, I did the game didn't work under DOS mode either.
But then I tried getting another copy of the game from somewhere else and the new copy worked without a problem, so the first copy was just broken or something.

From my experience, some of the earlier "golden age of DOS gaming" stuff - particularly late EGA/early VGA era stuff (think 1987-1990) can crash out with a "divide by Zero" error at t he prompt if the machine is too fast for it. Ultima VI comes to mind.

Anything from 1991 onward, especially multimedia heavy titles, you'll be fine with, or maybe even have a better experience.

There seems to be several patches for the game according to this thread on an other probably old forum: https://pckf.com/viewtopic.php?t=21

koleq wrote on 2022-04-12, 20:01:

This is the issue with keen1 https://i.ibb.co/vX43Lps/image.png I also disable all of my caches to slow down the cpu. […]
Show full quote

This is the issue with keen1

I also disable all of my caches to slow down the cpu.

Don't bother disabling cache with Keen. It will run even on a modern PC just fine, albeit with no sound.

What is your graphics card?

Also might be some weird issue with RAM, although I wouldn't expect Windows to boot in that case.

The game works great now, my copy was corrupted or something.

At first don't expect running DOS game in Win98SE.
You have to boot Win98SE in pure DOS mode.
It's easy to create a menu in AUTOEXEC.BAT & CONFIG.SYS at launch to choose between Win98SE and Pure DOS mode with different memory settings (EMS, NOEMS...)
I got a Pentium 166Mhz and 300 DOS games running fine (from 1991 to 2000).

creepingnet wrote on 2022-04-13, 19:30:

From my experience, some of the earlier "golden age of DOS gaming" stuff - particularly late EGA/early VGA era stuff (think 1987-1990) can crash out with a "divide by Zero" error at t he prompt if the machine is too fast for it. Ultima VI comes to mind.

Anything from 1991 onward, especially multimedia heavy titles, you'll be fine with, or maybe even have a better experience.

Ditto. PC/XT-compatible games predates EMS managers like EMM386 or QEMM usually don't like faster machines and/or large RAM, with different degrees of compatibility problems.

My personal experience of some games having problems on Asus TXP4, Pentium-MMX 233 MHz, 64MB RAM, S3 Savage4 Pro, Sound Blaster Pro 2 (CT1600), 512MB CF card, and MS-DOS 6.20:
Tetris (1988 Spectrum HoloByte edition): System halts even before entering the game.
Castlevania (1990): "Divided by zero" like creepingnet said.
JetFighter II (1990): Screen keeps flashing with horizontal bandings.
Railroad Tycoon (1990): Similar to JF2 but only during animation sequences.

Castlevania, JF2 and Railroad Tycoon could be fixed by turning off both internal and external caches (effectively turning the computer into Am386DX-40) and skipping config.sys and autoexec.bat (I even managed to play Castlevania with a Gameport controller!), but Tetris was very stubborn: it allowed me to enter the game and the level selection screen, but crashed after the main screen.

Games of 1991 and onwards generally don't have to worry about this problem.

I didn't read everything, but:

From my experience there are several games that have issues when played on CPU's much faster than what was common when the game was released. Some games such as Alley Cat remain playable but have subtle issues such as sound effects being sped up. Some games appear to be playable at first but will have annoying glitches. As someone already said, Sierra games are prone to this. Especially their early VGA titles.

One trick I remember from way back when was to go into the BIOS settings and to disable settings having to do with the CPU cache or some such. Remember, if you are using Windows 9x on your Pentium it could become very sluggish unless you boot directly into DOS mode if you disable those caches.

You could try pressing ctrl+alt+numeric key minus to slow the system down. Not sure if this works on a Pentium though.

Imho, playing with actual old hardware sounds like fun, but I remember my computer sometimes drove me crazy. A proper emulator may not provide the so called "full experience" but should also give you a lot less trouble.

Peter Swinkels wrote on 2022-04-14, 08:29:

You could try pressing ctrl+alt+numeric key minus to slow the system down. Not sure if this works on a Pentium though.

Is that key combination universal or model-specific? IMHO that function was not available on every computer.

Peter Swinkels wrote on 2022-04-14, 08:29:

Imho, playing with actual old hardware sounds like fun, but I remember my computer sometimes drove me crazy. A proper emulator may not provide the so called "full experience" but should also give you a lot less trouble.

I do test most things on PCem before trying them on my old hardware, and yes PCem gives me like little to no issues.
On the real hardware it's a bit harder but the experience over all is more fun, even though I can spend hours to days to figure something out.

@dormcat: I believe that key combo worked on any system that also supported the Turbo button.
@koleq: I understand the appeal, just giving advice. An emulator is also cheaper. Usually.

Peter Swinkels wrote on 2022-04-14, 08:55:

@koleq: I understand the appeal, just giving advice. An emulator is also cheaper. Usually.

Emulators are nice if one wants doesn't want the hassle of building and configuring old hardware and not a bad advice for DOS gaming but in several cases real hardware is needed for proper PC software development due to lack of accuracy, not just for experience and nostalgia.

For example the 3Dfx version of Dzzee initially didn't work on real hardware until the author got a real Voodoo card for his old machine to test with and DOSBox isn't useful for performance testing due to all instructions being 1 cycle which no x86 CPUs have realistically.

@gmlb256: you’re right but also kinda off topic.

Peter Swinkels wrote on 2022-04-14, 12:39:

@gmlb256: you’re right but also kinda off topic.

Yeah. I apologize for the derailment.

@gmlb256: no problem. 😀

dormcat wrote on 2022-04-14, 08:49:

Peter Swinkels wrote on 2022-04-14, 08:29:

You could try pressing ctrl+alt+numeric key minus to slow the system down. Not sure if this works on a Pentium though.

Is that key combination universal or model-specific? IMHO that function was not available on every computer.

I remember in the early Pentium era this was on Intel's own branded motherboards up to the 430fx chipset. Intel Zappa, Endeavor, Morrison etc.
Seemed pretty cool as the motherboard manual said it emulated a 23MHz AT pressing ctrl+alt+ minus key. It would only work in real mode though, didn't work in protected mode or V86 mode, so no emm386.

(warning: long recollection of half remembered things)

@Riicakirds:
I had no idea that ctrl+alt+minus was related to a specific Pentium chipset. I vaguely remembered it being a substitute of sorts for the Turbo button which was no longer supported by Pentiums although confusingly my parents owned a Pentium I, which had a Turbo button on its case. Which didn't work. To make things even more confusing (for me at least) I myself had an AMD 80586 (some kind of cheap Pentium rip off and actually a souped up 80486) which also had a Turbo button... that *drumroll* didn't appear to work either. To add to it all, mine had a display saying "133" when the button was enabled but "08" when not pressed... Among the jumble of memories I also recall my parents used to own a 80386 which also had a Turbo button. I know for a fact that one worked because I clearly remember using it to slow down games. (Sometimes as a sneaky way to give myself more time to react when timing was important. Ahem)

(edited)