|
Better than DosBox?
#341491 - 06/15/15 02:18 AM
|
|
|
Is there a Dos emulator better than DosBox? It looks like they haven't updated it in years.
|
|
|
|
Re: Better than DosBox?
[Re: mike20599]
#341492 - 06/15/15 03:07 AM
|
|
|
> Is there a Dos emulator better than DosBox? It looks like they haven't updated it in
> years.
Is there something that makes DosBox deficient in your view to make that kind of statement?
|
"Note to Noobs:
We are glad to help you but simply posting that something does not work is not going to lead to you getting help. The more information you can supply defining your problem, the less likely it will be that you will get smart-alec replies.
C.D.~"
|
|
|
Re: Better than DosBox?
[Re: Master O]
#341493 - 06/15/15 03:12 AM
|
|
|
> Is there something that makes DosBox deficient in your view to make that kind of
> statement?
Some of its features are rather flaky, e.g. MIDI I/O and some of the sound card emulation. Network emulation isn't very good, either. It's at the point where it's good enough for most games people want to play, and it just hasn't progressed.
|
|
|
|
Re: Better than DosBox?
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#341495 - 06/15/15 03:22 AM
|
|
|
> > Is there something that makes DosBox deficient in your view to make that kind of
> > statement?
>
> Some of its features are rather flaky, e.g. MIDI I/O and some of the sound card
> emulation. Network emulation isn't very good, either. It's at the point where it's
> good enough for most games people want to play, and it just hasn't progressed.
All true. But it plays a lot of games, can output to MUNT for mt-32 emulation and supports CRT pixel shaders if you use unofficial builds like the ones here:
http://ykhwong.x-y.net/
So I still use it for playing my old Sierra adventure games. 
MESS MAME can do a lot of this too and as time goes on will only do more. So that's what I will probably replace dosbox with. Eventually.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9717
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Better than DosBox?
[Re: SoltanGris42]
#341501 - 06/15/15 05:16 AM
|
|
|
> All true. But it plays a lot of games, can output to MUNT for mt-32 emulation and
> supports CRT pixel shaders if you use unofficial builds
MUNT is HLE bullshit (I own a real hardware MT-32, I'm allowed to say that), and the giant forest of mutually incompatible patches for DOSBox oughta get the original authors to either make a new release or formally hand over the project to someone who can.
|
|
|
|
Re: Better than DosBox?
[Re: R. Belmont]
#341504 - 06/15/15 06:43 AM
|
|
|
> > All true. But it plays a lot of games, can output to MUNT for mt-32 emulation and
> > supports CRT pixel shaders if you use unofficial builds
>
> MUNT is HLE bullshit (I own a real hardware MT-32, I'm allowed to say that), and the
> giant forest of mutually incompatible patches for DOSBox oughta get the original
> authors to either make a new release or formally hand over the project to someone who
> can.
Really? I didn't know that about MUNT. I'd like to get a real MT-32 myself but they're a bit expensive on eBay and I'm not sure how well it works when outputting to it from dosbox or MAME. I know you did a lot of work with MIDI/synth stuff and MAME a while ago. Is it feasible to hook a MT-32 up to a PC with some cheap USB thing and have dos software drive it (through the CT486 driver for example). If so, how is latency?
I've noticed that over on VOGONS they seem pretty hostile when someone brings up the fact that they haven't had an official release in years. Most of the cool stuff is from external patches it seems. But if that's the way they want it... They're kind of the only game in town. I have a million games from GOG now that come with an old DOSBox version that I always have to replace with a more feature filled compile.
MAME will probably pass them up eventually as far as compatibility and emulated hardware variety goes as more slot devices get added. It's not too far off now. But I suppose DOSBox will always be faster because all they care about is getting games to run.
|
|
|
|
Re: Better than DosBox?
[Re: R. Belmont]
#341506 - 06/15/15 08:21 AM
|
|
|
Is DosBox making a lot of money off GOG or something? Maybe they're afraid of updating it because they don't want to break what's working?
|
|
|
Stiletto |
|
They're always after me Lucky ROMS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 03/07/04
|
|
Posts: 6472
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Better than DosBox?
[Re: mike20599]
#341527 - 06/15/15 09:14 PM
|
|
|
> Is there a Dos emulator better than DosBox? It looks like they haven't updated it in
> years.
That's nonsense, DOSBox is still updated regularly. They just haven't had a binary RELEASE in years.
Here's a list of updates to their SVN:
http://sourceforge.net/p/dosbox/code-0/3919/log/?path=
Or this if you prefer:
http://source.dosbox.com/dosboxsvn.txt
To gt the latest version, you must checkout SVN and compile, or defer to shadier sources like EmuCR.
Agreed with others that there are some really cool patches which could stand to make it into baseline, but that's up to Qbix and company.
The wiki explains all of this: http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/SVN_Builds#SVN_changelog
---
As for "DOS emulator", there's really nothing out there other than dosemu for Linux. But if you expand your request to "PC emulator" (where you have to provide a disk image and a bootable operating system, BIOS ROMs, etc.) then you'll find a lot of neat projects, such as PCem, PCE, Bochs, and (of course) MESS. And you can always try virtual machines like Qemu, VirtualBox, VMWare, Virtual PC and see how you fare.
We had a thread on this at VOGONS recently:
http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42211
- Stiletto
|
|
|
Previous 
Index 
Next 
Threaded 
Better than DosBox?
Reply
[Re: 
