«

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by madcrow

DOSbox doesn't intergrate with the system at all. It creates a virtual DOS machine, using various folders and disk images as virtual drives. You start programs using oldschool DOS commands from inside DOSbox.

Unless you use front end?!

I've just read conversation between DOSBox and VirtualPC about 'virtualization', where VPC virtualize real PC while DOSBox just emulates OS. What do you think??

[The Fifth Horseman]

VPC virtualize real PC while DOSBox just emulates OS

Whoever thought it to be this way, got Emulation and Virtualization mixed up with each other.
DOSBox emulates more than just the OS - several types of video and audio hardware spring to mind - whereas virtual machines are meant to provide a general compatibility rather than simulate the hardware in exact detail.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by The Fifth Horseman

Whoever thought it to be this way, got Emulation and Virtualization mixed up with each other.
DOSBox emulates more than just the OS - several types of video and audio hardware spring to mind - whereas virtual machines are meant to provide a general compatibility rather than simulate the hardware in exact detail.

I do agree with you. That argument came from people who are working on VPC project.

VPC emulates sound, video and networking, while processing is virtual, where DOSBox emulates processor as well. That's the whole difference IMHO.

[The Fifth Horseman]

That's the whole difference IMHO.

I wouldn't agree with this. See, DOSBox emulates several different types of hardware (which can be changed), while virtual machines (eg VPC) typically have one pre-defined configuration which is mostly unchangeable.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by The Fifth Horseman

I wouldn't agree with this. See, DOSBox emulates several different types of hardware (which can be changed), while virtual machines (eg VPC) typically have one pre-defined configuration which is mostly unchangeable.

Except that CPU is different on different hosts?! (as VPC does not emulate CPU)

[The Fifth Horseman]

Except that - which still is pre-determined after a fashion, rather than user-definable.

[Rogue]

See, we are almost at agreement. :amused:

So, the difference is that VPC virtualize real PC, where DOSBox just emulates, so it is easier to make changes to configuration.

Just for example, DOSBox emulates OS, so you don't need to install soundcard, where on VPC you have to do all of that by yourself.

I know, you can install real DOS in DOSBox (I've done that too) and you can install W3.11 or Win95, but DOSBox is not intended for that.

[arlesya]

you guys are scaring me O_o I really wanted to buy a laptop, but here in Japan they all come with Vista. People have been telling me how bad it is, but I also fear that soon some programs won't run in Xp. How bad really is Vista?

[dosraider]

If you have the appropiate hardware Vista isn't that bad at all.
You'd better have some 2Gb RAM.
On the other hand, programs that will not run on XP are not for tomorow.

But newer hardware can be troublesome with XP, alas, certainly laptops.
If they are designed for Vista, they will run it fine.

Hey, even dosbox runs fine in Vista!

[Edit]
Just installed Vista SP1 on my second PC ( the main one will have to wait t'll I'm 100% they don't screw something up with that main upgrade).

Dosbox 0.72 still works fine, except it seems that now when you mount a CD or ISO you're better use the -noioctl switch if you can't get CD sounds/music.
It's not always needed, weird.
Something to remember for the troubleshooting sub.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by arlesya

you guys are scaring me O_o I really wanted to buy a laptop, but here in Japan they all come with Vista. People have been telling me how bad it is, but I also fear that soon some programs won't run in Xp. How bad really is Vista?

Don't worry.

At introduction of all new systems same people are complaining over and over. Just recently at the time of XP introduction everyone (mostly the same people who complained on W2K hardware need) said how W2K was better, that XP is just a cosmetic for W2K etc. In the time they might have notice that it is more stable then W2K.

Same thing is with Vista. For me it is more stable. I had only one problem in the past year I've been using it and a bit over 2 years of testing it. On my laptop shutdown can take very long. I could not figure out, nor I like to contact Dell (laptop is Dell) or Microsoft (I'm MSDN subscriber, so I can get help from those guys as well) as that takes time. I just use sleep button, and problem IMO is solved. :laugh:

One thing that I disabled is MS or Google toolbar, gadgets, I don't use visual theme (you can have movie playing as background) etc., but I use everything else at defaults.

It is true that you need at least 2GB memory to get the best of Vista, and SP1 is finally out. (or is it, I have it installed for some time now)

As for games, if you install XP games it will tell you if the game has problem with Vista and give you possible solutions, like downloads. I like that part of this OS.