Ask Slashdot: DOSBox, or DOS Box? 585
An anonymous reader writes "Are DOS game emulators like the highly-respectable DOSBox good enough now, or is there still no substitute for the real thing? Like a lot of Slashdotters I'm getting older and simplifying, which means tossing out old junk. Which means The Closet full of DOS era crap. And I'm hesitating — should I put aside things like the ISA SoundBlaster with gameport? Am I trashing things that some fellow geek somewhere truly needs to preserve the old games? Or can I now truck all this stuff down to recycling without a twinge of guilt? (Younger folk who didn't play DOOM at 320x200 should really resist commenting this time. Let the Mods keep them off our lawn.)"
Long term... (Score:5, Interesting)
Good riddance (Score:5, Interesting)
The more physical things we can get rid of, the better
I for one I'm quite happy to not have a closet full of 286/386/486/PIIs/PIIIs/etc boxes and peripherals... so much less stuff to store/maintain/move. It also makes you look like a sane person when you bring a woman home =)
Neither DOSbox nor a 486 - go Amiga (Score:2, Interesting)
With just a few exceptions, an Atari 800 or Commodore 64 or Amiga emulator is better than any DOS-based games. Better graphics, better sound, and so simple even an idiot could make it work (standard hardware == console level simplicity == plug'n'play). No need to mess with complicated DOS configurations trying to make the carn-sarn-flippy-flam VGA or soundblasthing work. (Grrrr.)
For the era 1985 to 95, almost every game looks and plays better Via the Amiga version. Now when you're talking Pentium-level games, which are post 1995, those will eclipse what an Amiga could do. But still - no need for DOSbox. Windows XP will do the trick, or Windows98 if XP fails for some reason.
Serial interfacing (Score:2, Interesting)
Ever try to program a Motorola commercial radio from the 80's? It turns out that you need some hardware from the era to make it work. DOSBox runs the program just fine, but it can't control the serial ports correctly, so the program cannot read or write radio configruations.
On getting rid of old hardware... (Score:4, Interesting)
For every piece of old hardware I have, I can usually find a home for it. I have people asking me for leads on stuff like AT power supplies and boards that aren't all PCI/PCI-E.
So before you chuck that old DOS box away, make sure there's not some other collector who would like it. :)
(Hugs MSD SD2.)
Chuck it. (Score:4, Interesting)
If nothing else, figure the space in your home is $150-$200 / sf. Keeping junk isn't free, it costs money. Declutter and you may feel less desire for a larger place.
Re:On getting rid of old hardware... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:no substitute for the real thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, the games designed for Win98 just don't work well on anything after XP. Most don't work that well in XP, either.
Here's a fantastic rig for Win98 games:
1GHz P3 on an AOpen A34 motherboard
256MB RAM
GeForce 2 AGP video card
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz audio card
Intel Pro/100 Ethernet
500GB HD
Running Windows 98SE with the unofficial 2.1a service pack, DX9, MP9, IE6, and KernelEx to run more recent browsers.
The nice thing about the above hardware combo is that it was supported until fairly recently - most of the kinks have been worked out in the supported games. The GeForce 2 has enough horsepower to play nearly every 98 era game at 1024x768 res as fast as your monitor can refresh.
KEEP IT! (Score:3, Interesting)
I didnt think it mattered, until one day many years ago I uncovered my copy of Mechwarrior.
Not thinking anything of this then 10yo+ game, I dragged it out and threw it onto my thoroughly modern rig. Bear in mid this was last played on a 486, MAYBE an Pentium, and I was now throwing it onto a 2ghz Athlon XP rig (early P4 equivalent). I installed it and it seemed to go ok. I started the game, great!
lets stop and think back, shall we? Now if you recall playing, you would start the game, and there would be no enemies in sight. you would then start trudging across the field at a pace of about two steps per second. in about 90 seconds to 2 minutes, the first opponent would appear. after several minutes of guns and rockets, one of you would die. Not this time.
I started walking the mech, and it was more like a sprint... the mech was virtually RUNNING at about 4-6 steps per second and its barely controllable. next thing I know the other mechs are on top of me, and before I can get more than one shot off, a hail of rockets and guns and I am dead. The game literally lasted 20 seconds.
Apparently that particular title relied on the clock speed of the processor. the faster the processor, the faster the game would play. By attempting to run that game on a modern platform, I realized that there was no substitute for the original platform.
So yes, hang onto the hardware if you really want to game and get the original results.
Re:Roland MT-32 (Score:3, Interesting)
There used to be a software implementation of the MT-32 that you could use as a plug-in for DOSBox, but Roland sued them to stop, since it used MT-32 samples. 'Cause, you know, Roland really cashes in on those late 80's consumer-grade sample sets.
How about DOS for enterprise apps? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got a similar issue, but with old business applications instead of games.
I have clients that are still running 16-bit DOS applications for thousands of users (don't ask), and are having real trouble with them because support for 32-bit operating systems is slowly but surely disappearing. For example, terminal services requires "Server" editions of Windows, but since 2008 R2, there are no more 32-bit editions, and the 64-bit editions cannot run 16-bit applications at all.
I've been looking for a DOS emulator for 64-bit Windows with decent performance that has the same (or similar) features as the emulation in 32-bit Windows editions, such as cut & paste, transparent access drives, etc...
The DOS emulators designed for games behave more like VMware: they emulate a physical machine with peripherals. What I'm looking for is more of a backwards-compatibility layer like the NTVDM [wikipedia.org] system that can be found in 32-bit editions of Windows, but capable of running under a 64-bit OS.
Anyone here know of something like that?
Re:For DOS games, sure. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For DOS games, sure. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't believe that at all. The PS2 is hard to emulate because it's an exotic design intended for a particular programming style (stream processing) and it took people a long time to understand it. It was also designed to be as powerful as possible for the price, so it sacrifices things like regularity and robustness.
I used to do the 'intro to PS2' chat for new programmers and I would draw the architecture diagram on the whiteboard, starting with the main bus and CPU. They'd be fine at first and as more and more boxes appeared they would get steadily more apprehensive. There are 7 big black books which describe the PS2 hardware, sometimes quite tersely, and there is much, much more you need to know to get the best out of it. I am not surprised at all that emulation has proven a tall order.