zyzzle wrote on 2021-07-15, 03:56:

Now, with modern systems and DOSBOX, I consider the multi-gigabyte bloated, behemoth of Windows, MacOS, or other "modern" operating system to "be in the way." It's so much easier to wait 5 seconds by booting a DOS USB memory stick and be in DOS gaming bliss than is it is to wait 60 - 90 seconds or longer, for 10 Gigabytes of bloat to load first, *then* run my DOS game in an emulation mode, using a bloated program, with imperfect screen resolutions.

The assumption, which holds true for most modern tech-savvy people, is that is "bloated" Windows/MacOS is already running on your PC at all times. Heck, I'm typing on these forums right now, am I not? If I want to play my DOS game, all I need to do know is just to open a DOSBox window (maybe fullscreen if I want), without interrupting anything.

No way that the "boot a DOS USB stick by going to my dedicated retro PC in the other room" is going to be faster than that. In fact, I think I shall play some Lost Vikings right now. 😜:

*Back from playing*

As for the imperfect resolution - this is more an issue of LCD vs CRT and their features, and not of the program. On a typical modern LCD, I'd prefer to have the DOSBox scaling options that at least can make the game look less pixelated. Of course, my real DOS machine still has a CRT connected to it, which I plan to keep for as long as it lives.

P.S. The above is also valid for emulators of retro consoles versus "the real deal".

Jo22 wrote on 2021-07-15, 07:59:

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-07-15, 05:34:

zyzzle wrote on 2021-07-15, 03:56:

Yes, I do acknowledge that pre-QEMM and pre-DOS 6.0, memory management could be an issue with some games. But, even then, you tinkered and got it right and all was good. DOS wasn't "in the way" so much that the 640K barrier was. Once QEMM / XMS came out, those memory problems could be easily solved, even by those who just "wanted to play the games."

Now, with modern systems and DOSBOX, I consider the multi-gigabyte bloated, behemoth of Windows, MacOS, or other "modern" operating system to "be in the way." It's so much easier to wait 5 seconds by booting a DOS USB memory stick and be in DOS gaming bliss than is it is to wait 60 - 90 seconds or longer, for 10 Gigabytes of bloat to load first, *then* run my DOS game in an emulation mode, using a bloated program, with imperfect screen resolutions.

But, I get the notion that DOSBOX has indeed "kept DOS alive", and at least I'm grateful for that. 1% of current computer operators are tinkerers, the other 99% are users, of course. But, I've alway been and always shall be a tinkerer. Thanks for places like VOGONS which keep us in communication, the dwindling few. The playing and using is a bit of a bonus that makes the tinkering so incredibly satisfying!

DRIs DRDos 5 &6 as well as PC/MS Dos 5.x had memory management....😀

And Novell DOS 7, the best DOS ever. 😉

It depends on what you mean by bast as well as personal preference.

I never really liked that Novell got hold of it just really for battles against MickySoft.

It's cool Novell Dos 7 ships with Personal Wetware though.

dr_st wrote on 2021-07-15, 08:34:

The assumption, which holds true for most modern tech-savvy people, is that is "bloated" Windows/MacOS is already running on your PC at all times. Heck, I'm typing on these forums right now, am I not? If I want to play my DOS game, all I need to do know is just to open a DOSBox window (maybe fullscreen if I want), without interrupting anything.

+1 👍 That's a term for this, it's called High Availabiity.
There is also something called Suspend & Hibernate that all modern systems regardless of Windows, Linux, macOS, laptops or desktops use for fast system resume. All modern systems including desktops with fast SSDs, typically resume into login screen in less than 1s. With Windows Hello & fingerprint sensors, one will be right into the desktop with all the apps, consoles, IMs and paused games in their right place since last idle. Waiting for PC/laptops to boot up in 60~90 seconds was things of the past.

You know, let me reframe my argument about DOSBOX killing DOS. Because it's not that DOSBOX is better. It has trade offs. It's that DOSBOX let the industry off the hook of supporting DOS. Even after Windows no longer had a "DOS mode", if people needed DOS, some hardware somewhere would have maintained robust support for it.

Lets imagine a world without DOSBOX, with a loud and noisy minority of users who need even modern systems to run DOS well to keep their beloved gaming libraries alive. Maybe in such a world, modern graphics cards maintain their support for legacy modes better. Maybe integrated audio chips actually have dos drivers for some basic SB16 functionality. Maybe motherboards can smartly emulate a USB gamepad on a fake game port. Maybe DOS compatibility becomes an explicit bullet point for certain products. A bullet point way, way down the list. But a bullet point all the same.

Maybe I'm wrong. Every version of Windows has made at least the gesture of including compatibility modes for previous versions of windows. But I'm not aware of anyone having any success with them, at least not for games that are also sensitive to DirectX version, drivers, etc. And you can pretty much forget any 16-bit applications for the majority of users that have the 64-bit version of their OS installed.

There is a growing gap of Windows games that had very peculiar environmental requirements from the 90's that you simply cannot get to run, no way, no how, on a modern system. Short of emulation, virtualization, source ports, 3rd party patches or wrappers. The native support is as good as dead.

Then again, maybe the option to run 32-bit WinXP virtualized, and even with 3D acceleration to boot, let the industry off the hook similarly to DOSBOX.

It's not Dosbox fault at all, in any way, shape or form.

MS already wanted to kill DOS since the 90s. Because it always was a security hell hole, because it didn't have multitasking at its core, did not have a flat memory model, etc...

Dosbox exists because the lack of DOS support was already present.

Namrok wrote on 2021-07-15, 12:54:

You know, let me reframe my argument about DOSBOX killing DOS. Because it's not that DOSBOX is better. It has trade offs. It's that DOSBOX let the industry off the hook of supporting DOS. Even after Windows no longer had a "DOS mode", if people needed DOS, some hardware somewhere would have maintained robust support for it.

It's like saying that the inventors of the combustion engine "let the industry off the hook", and that if it hadn't been invented, somebody somewhere would have figure out how to travel at 70 miles per hour on horse and carriage.

Namrok wrote on 2021-07-15, 12:54:

Lets imagine a world without DOSBOX, with a loud and noisy minority of users who need even modern systems to run DOS well to keep their beloved gaming libraries alive. Maybe in such a world, modern graphics cards maintain their support for legacy modes better. Maybe integrated audio chips actually have dos drivers for some basic SB16 functionality. Maybe motherboards can smartly emulate a USB gamepad on a fake game port. Maybe DOS compatibility becomes an explicit bullet point for certain products. A bullet point way, way down the list. But a bullet point all the same.

I do see your point, but I think chronologically, all these things were already on their way out, if not gone, when DOSBox kicked off. The initial release was in 2002. New systems from that time (both hardware and software) already had very limited native DOS support. Of course at that point, there were still plenty of older systems running DOS and DOS hardware just fine, so it may feel like DOSBox somehow triggered DOS's demise, while it's more like the other way around.

Namrok wrote on 2021-07-15, 12:54:

Maybe I'm wrong. Every version of Windows has made at least the gesture of including compatibility modes for previous versions of windows. But I'm not aware of anyone having any success with them, at least not for games that are also sensitive to DirectX version, drivers, etc.

They work in a handful of very specific cases. Actually, Windows usually includes many compatibility shims that are activated automatically (based on a library of known applications), so your old game may be running in some sort of 'compatibility mode', even if you haven't explicitly set it up.

Yes, chronologically DOSBox came *after* everything went Windows, especially the Windows NT branch that made DOS gaming mostly impossible. And then it took a little while before DOSBox was actually useable IMO.
And thankfully! Otherwise we would not have Exult or ScummVM which were both already pretty far when DOSBox became useable.
Some projects were killed off by DOSBox, IMO 😀

xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-07-15, 13:36:

It's not Dosbox fault at all, in any way, shape or form.

MS already wanted to kill DOS since the 90s. Because it always was a security hell hole, because it didn't have multitasking at its core, did not have a flat memory model, etc...

Dosbox exists because the lack of DOS support was already present.

I second that! Some magazines of the ~mid-80s (1984?) declared DOS for dead, even!
Sorry, can't remwmber the exact year! It was definitely before MS-DOS 3.3, however. 🙂
Say, between DOS 2.11 and DOS 3.2..

More than that, even. Windows 1.0 was seen as a last,
desparate attempt to save the obsolete DOS platform, according to some press of the day.

Edit: To make things clear: This was in a time, when MS-DOS compatibles had their heyday.
At the time, non-IBM PCs had better specs than the IBM industry standard and the limitations of DOS became very noticable.
A few years later, I assume, killer apps like Lotus 1-2-3 and dBase
appeared and people got used to all these IBM limits.
But before this, the pros of good old CP/M were still in people's mind.
Portability, multi-user abilities (CP/M v3; MP/M) and a graphics API..
Yrs, CP/M had an official graphics API (GSX)! Unlike MS-DOS!
I know, it's all a bit contradicting and strange. 😅

Why did Solaris 10s system requirement for x86 less(120mhz) than the a SPARK system(200mhz) for Solaris 10 if x86 class systems were inferior?

xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-07-15, 13:36:

MS already wanted to kill DOS since the 90s.

The next target is 32-bit software.

Dominus wrote on 2021-07-15, 16:51:

Some projects were killed off by DOSBox, IMO 😀

And, the evil virtualization/pass-through evangelism is now on killing spree... 🤣

Window 1.0 & 2.0(286 or 386) where never taken seriously at all by the industry. MS Windows 3.0 is the version that really set the ball rolling. Win 3 was used as a runtime though for a lot of larger x86 programs such as Ventura Pubisher etc.

CP/M\MP/M where truely cross platform OSs, including x86. If the price difference between PC/MS Dos and CP/M when IBM offered them at the release of the original IBM PC things may will turn out a bit different than they did.

dr_st wrote on 2021-07-15, 08:34:

zyzzle wrote on 2021-07-15, 03:56:

Now, with modern systems and DOSBOX, I consider the multi-gigabyte bloated, behemoth of Windows, MacOS, or other "modern" operating system to "be in the way." It's so much easier to wait 5 seconds by booting a DOS USB memory stick and be in DOS gaming bliss than is it is to wait 60 - 90 seconds or longer, for 10 Gigabytes of bloat to load first, *then* run my DOS game in an emulation mode, using a bloated program, with imperfect screen resolutions.

The assumption, which holds true for most modern tech-savvy people, is that is "bloated" Windows/MacOS is already running on your PC at all times. Heck, I'm typing on these forums right now, am I not? If I want to play my DOS game, all I need to do know is just to open a DOSBox window (maybe fullscreen if I want), without interrupting anything.

No way that the "boot a DOS USB stick by going to my dedicated retro PC in the other room" is going to be faster than that. In fact, I think I shall play some Lost Vikings right now. 😜:

Of course there's hibernation and sleep modes, but I'm a stickler for not liking to leave anything "on" as even these low-power modes consume power all the time, and those costs do add up, especially at my power rates of 55 cents per kilowatt hour. So, if something's not being used, I turn it off at the power-strip and then I know *zero* watts are being consumed. I have 5 or 6 systems throughout the house, so leaving them all "on" even in hibernation 24 hours a day all the time would add quite a lot, just for "convenience" costs. Still, going to "off" to fully functional with game running 100% on bare metal via DOS memory stick in 5 seconds is fun, and so liberating...

But, for "modern" purposes, yes, hibernation / sleep mode is the way to go, especially is the PC isn't your own personal one and / or tweaked. Or in an office setting, etc. But for my very specific needs, I don't want to have 6 systems "always on," so I keep 5 of them dead to the world whiie I'm using just one. And I do have dedicated "Windows" PCs where DOS is never even used. Conversely, I also have many different vintage laptops, etc which are the 'perfect' DOS systems, and they never even run Windows or any other 'modern' OS, etc.

null

Anders- wrote on 2021-07-15, 20:17:

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-07-15, 19:07:

Why did Solaris 10s system requirement for x86 less(120mhz) than the a SPARK system(200mhz) for Solaris 10 if x86 class systems were inferior?

What are you smoking? 😁

It is on the back of the box under system requirements buddy.

zyzzle wrote on 2021-07-15, 19:44:

Of course there's hibernation and sleep modes, but I'm a stickler for not liking to leave anything "on" as even these low-power modes consume power all the time, and those costs do add up, especially at my power rates of 55 cents per kilowatt hour.

You can justify your habits in any way you want, but these alleged power costs are negligible. Try to find out how much an average PC consumes in sleep mode (hibernation is like power-off), and do the math.

Heck, even leaving a desktop PC on 24/7 - although by no means negligible - would put just a small dent in the average electricity bill. A computer is just not that big of a consumer, especially when idling. A laptop is even less than that.

But the point is not what you do. Obviously you have your workflow and your habits, and I have no desire to convince you to change any of them. However, an average person will probably have at least one PC on / in standby mode at all times. For such a person, DOSBOX is a far faster and convenient way to play a DOS game.

Anders- wrote on 2021-07-15, 20:17:

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-07-15, 19:07:

Why did Solaris 10s system requirement for x86 less(120mhz) than the a SPARK system(200mhz) for Solaris 10 if x86 class systems were inferior?

What are you smoking? 😁

Hardware Requirements Memory 128MB or greater Disk Space: 12GB Processor: Sparc 200MHz minimum -x86 120 MHz minimum with hardware floating point. DVD Drive (recommended)

zyzzle wrote on 2021-07-15, 19:44:

So, if something's not being used, I turn it off at the power-strip and then I know *zero* watts are being consumed. I have 5 or 6 systems throughout the house, so leaving them all "on" even in hibernation 24 hours a day all the time would add quite a lot, just for "convenience" costs.

You have your point and I have many friends who do that, too. There is always another perspective into the argument of "cost". High Availability would enable High Productivity. When one leverages High Productivity to generate revenue, then it would cover the cost. For instance, the modern way of computing life now leans towards having one big screen or multiple smaller ones to make up the same screen estate. One can just keep all the windows of a trading app open monitoring S&P, Nasdaq, Dow Jones, Gold, Brent Oil at the same time with DOSBox running games in windowed. One never stop responding to emails & IMs (the boring) or posting junks into VOGONS while fragging through DOOM/Duke3d on DOSBox (the fun).

null

Anders- wrote on 2021-07-15, 21:28:

You can't just compare clock frequency from one architecture to another and say the higher clocked one is "inferior". Furthermor […]
Show full quote

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-07-15, 20:25:

Anders- wrote on 2021-07-15, 20:17:

What are you smoking? 😁

Hardware Requirements Memory 128MB or greater Disk Space: 12GB Processor: Sparc 200MHz minimum -x86 120 MHz minimum with hardware floating point. DVD Drive (recommended)

You can't just compare clock frequency from one architecture to another and say the higher clocked one is "inferior".
Furthermore, the snippet above doesn't say which processors it refers to...

Edit: are you thinking of giving it a try?

Tried to get it on a local auction last week Somebody obviuosly wanted ift more than I did. New. still sealed in he box. These days I just set my max bid on the day an auction expires. If I win fine. Saves a lot of stress and anticipation worries. Just look at the auction the next day to see what the outcome is.If I don't win fine. I have a complete Solaris 8 boxed set for SPARK systems.

Won two SPARK systems about 8 years ago for Solaris 8 it to be installed on, but seems like the seller was pissed off I got them sooo cheap..😉 No one else had bidded on them for like four months prior. He never finalized the sale and never sent me those two systems once I'd paid for them. They and pisserd ff with my money to be never heard of again. Wouldn't be surprised if they aren't selling under a different name after that. They just disappared off the face of the planet. I was really looking forward to getting those Spark systems.

Even SUN was upset how well systems performed using x86 kit compared to their own propitiatory product line. Like most things computer related I do a ton of research before purchasing anything...😉

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-07-15, 20:22:

Anders- wrote on 2021-07-15, 20:17:

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-07-15, 19:07:

Why did Solaris 10s system requirement for x86 less(120mhz) than the a SPARK system(200mhz) for Solaris 10 if x86 class systems were inferior?

What are you smoking? 😁

It is on the back of the box under system requirements buddy.

Ah yes. I would like to see the 120MHz x86 system that can meet the 384MB recommended RAM requirement on the box.

I mean, I could point the fact that Solaris 10 requires at its minimum a 64 Bit UltraSparc II CPU (sun-4m) which came out in ‘97 and starts at 200MHz, but hey, who actually knows about Sun hardware here, amirite?