«

[The Fifth Horseman]

Originally Posted by dipo

Yes, but it has still all old features. So it shouldn't matter?

Never believe 100% backwards compatibility. It just doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by Scatty

More than 128 MB RAM is also not recommended, 64 is even better and safer.

I know for a fact that certain games bug out at 32.
Personally, I'd say that nobody should build a machine meant to run both DOS and Windows 98 games.

DOS/Windows 95 is a different beast - 200 mHz CPU, 24 MB RAM, a 1 - 2 GB HDD and a 2 MB graphics card will be perfectly fine. Soundblaster 16 or Pro 2 (depends on personal preference)

For Windows 98 I'd recommend somewhere around 128 - 256 MB RAM, 4 - 40 GB HDD (depending on what do you want to install there), and a 500 - 800 mHz CPU. 4 to 8 MB graphics card, and you'll probably want a Voodoo 3D accelerator (or two) in there as well.

[_r.u.s.s.]

dipo- first of all, for the newer processor you'd need a newer motherboard to stick it into. and with newer mother board comes lack of some ports, like ps2 or the old printer thingy, so careful with that. also, if i were you, i'd pick one with ISA port for a sound card.

if you have dual core, the dos will ignore the other core. and 64 bit processors have different addressing, i don't know how would that affect dos. the processor should be compatible with 386 so it can run in protected mode but i dunno, i'm pretty sure programmers did use some tricks wich'd fail at newer architectures. i'd rather pick something between 400mhz-1ghz. and NOT AMD, AMDs sucked back then

[dipo]

Originally Posted by Scatty

First of all Pentium III is mostly ok, but 3 Ghz is way too fast,

Maybe those slowdown programs help?

Originally Posted by Scatty

Well that's still not quite the best system for older Ms-Dos and Windows95/98 games.

Originally Posted by Scatty

450 Mhz is an absolute maximum on Pentium III for Dos games, faster brings problems. More than 128 MB RAM is also not recommended, 64 is even better and safer.

Originally Posted by Scatty

And drop Windows XP, you're much better off to use a better computer only for Windows XP and internet and that Pentium III for old Windows95 / Dos games only. That Pentium III is not optimal for it anyway, and you also are forced to have more RAM than old games support without a problem.

I know that and I don't really want to buy old hardware.

In this thread I asked explicitly if someone takes this challenge on that fast hardware (or even faster one) and wants to share some knowledge.

This was my whole concern I wanted to discuss and not optimal old hardware for DOS. (sorry, but thanks anyway)

Originally Posted by Scatty

Windows 95 and Ms-Dos 7 it uses is also perfect for all old Dos and Windows games, I didn't encounter any problems with it compared to Ms-Dos 6.22 whatsoever. Windows 98SE is also good.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Scatty

But Freedos might be worse in terms of compatibility.

Originally Posted by Scatty

hence the keyboard problem with Aladdin. Lowering the keyboard repeat rate and raising it's repeat delay in Dos (mode con: rate=5 delay=20

Thanks, I will keep this back in mind an try out.

Originally Posted by _r.u.s.s.

dipo- first of all, for the newer processor you'd need a newer motherboard to stick it into.

Yes.

Originally Posted by _r.u.s.s.

and with newer mother board comes lack of some ports, like ps2 or the old printer thingy, so careful with that.

Yes and DOS needs ps2. Currently I am using USB to PS2 converters.

But I think PS2 free boards must have all legacy keyboard/mouse support in BIOS?

Originally Posted by _r.u.s.s.

if you have dual core, the dos will ignore the other
core.

I heard this.

Originally Posted by _r.u.s.s.

and 64 bit processors have different addressing, i don't know how would that affect dos.

64 bit processors have still real mode, protected mode and additionally long mode. Theoretically (apart from the speed) DOS shouldn't note any difference.

Originally Posted by _r.u.s.s.

the processor should be compatible with 386 so it can run in protected mode but i dunno,

I think any processor for PC "IBM compatible" needs to be 8086 compatible. Not because of DOS, but because real mode and BIOS calls are still used by modern operating systems for bootstrapping.

Originally Posted by _r.u.s.s.

i'm pretty sure programmers did use some tricks wich'd fail at newer architectures

Maybe, I am interested...

I remember... One trick them used in past was while(10000) { wait }. On low MHZ this takes let's say for example 5 seconds. On today's CPU's this takes much less then a second. Therefore to much speed means bugs in games.

Don't know if this can be completely resolved by slowdown. Also don't know if there are other issues.

[_r.u.s.s.]

lol of course we are not going to convince you to buy slower cpu, it's your business and problems. we were giving advices based on our personal experiences with problems on faster cpus and older systems

[Japo]

Originally Posted by Scatty

First of all Pentium III is mostly ok, but 3 Ghz is way too fast

True, although I think architecture would be more important than clock rate. I'd (uneducately) guess that clock rate would be the least of your concerns, and slowdown programs such as Moslo would solve it many times. I never got a game running too fast in my P3, true it was 450 MHz, but that's still 20 times as much as the rates those games were intended for. There are some few core features that are kept for compatibility, but each processor series has tons of individual specs. Of course a 3 GHz Pentium IV is not a 3 GHz Pentium III with only a different name.

Even 64 bits processors have a compatibility mode for 32 bits, I would know since my current machine has a 64 bits Pentium D and a 32 bits Windows XP (it's an out of the box Dell desktop!) and works perfectly. But I'd bet I wouldn't get good results turning it into a DOS machine, even if I hacked off the cards without DOS support and installed old ones in slots that the computer doesn't have.

More than 128 MB RAM is also not recommended, 64 is even better and safer.

I agree with Horseman here, games that crash catastrophically at startup with much RAM, then work just fine with less. Keep in mind that under DOS, programs have to address physical memory themselves. I've seen this in DOSBox, and I know I know, but still I wouldn't be surprised if tests on a real machine confirmed it, nor the bit about Pentium III-IV and DOS.

For 3D and such DOS games that need much RAM, keep in mind that they may run fine AND natively in Windows 9x. What in turn runs perfectly fine inside Virtual PC in a XP or Vista host. (Again they may not, like Tomb Raider in Win98SE for me--but it runs perfect in DOSBox.)

Windows 95 and Ms-Dos 7 it uses is also perfect for all old Dos and Windows games, I didn't encounter any problems with it compared to Ms-Dos 6.22 whatsoever. Windows 98SE is also good. But Freedos might be worse in terms of compatibility.
And drop Windows XP, you're much better off to use a better computer only for Windows XP and internet and that Pentium III for old Windows95 / Dos games only. That Pentium III is not optimal for it anyway, and you also are forced to have more RAM than old games support without a problem.

I've said this before, but my experience does say that quite some games run in 6.x but don't in Win9x (at least Win98SE), not even "rebooting in DOS mode" (DOS 7.1)--in the same physical machine. (It might also work the other way around, LOL.)

[_r.u.s.s.]

hey i just found a video about how will some games look like on fast cpu =P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDZ3h...eature=related

[dosraider]

Would you peeps believe it's always kinda funny to read those statements regarding 'teh ideal dos PC', certainly when I think back at the 808*/286/386/486 era we lived through .......
P2/P3 ideal? Laughing my arse off here.
64 MB RAM? Djees man, we could only dream about having more then 8 MBs on a 386......

:laugh:

[Scatty]

Originally Posted by dosraider

Would you peeps believe it's always kinda funny to read those statements regarding 'teh ideal dos PC', certainly when I think back at the 808*/286/386/486 era we lived through .......
P2/P3 ideal? Laughing my arse off here.
64 MB RAM? Djees man, we could only dream about having more then 8 MBs on a 386......

:laugh:

Try to play Shadows over Riva, Alien Trilogy or System Shock on a 386 SX33 or 486 DX2-66 with 8MB RAM and see how much fun you'll have.

[dosraider]

Wouldn't you all be better to talk about configs for specific games then?
And certainly not talk about a PERFECT DOS CONFIG, because that simply doesn't exist.

Because for every game you mention that won't run on a 286 I can state one that won't run on a P3 .....
Or is it only about the games YOU are interested in? That doesn't make things teh ultimate truth.

Let's start:
Scatty why don't you try to run Corncob3D on a P3, let us know how far you get with that one.

[Scatty]

Remind me to try that out when I have a Pentium III one day again
Though to be clear, you're pretty much right that there's no perfect Dos-games computer or a Dos configuration. There is, however, a working middle that covers more games than either of the weak 386/486'er or strong Pentium 3/4'er and better.
Pentium II with 400Mhz is also certainly a better "middle" than a Pentium III with 450Mhz. I had both those systems myself for a period of time and could try out a good variety of Dos games on them, and while the P3 450 was very good, Pentium II 400 was a bit better in few cases regarding Dos-games. But Pentium III with a 8MB Ati Rage3D was better for stronger Windows 95/98 games. Both of them 'did' work with all Dos games I could try on them, through slight fiddles on config.sys and autoexec.bat files sometimes if required, though very little-demanding games like Corncob3D might have been a bit too fast on them.