/vr/ - Retro Games

>>9048207
I'm also attempting a XP build as well, but I am not expecting DOS compatibility since I don't think the XP line has a strong compatibility layer to natively run some DOS apps. Maybe try running your DOS programs through DOSbox instead?

>>9049808
Windows 98 would do a better job running DOS games (win98 was still DOS at its core), and you can still play 'XP era' games because they still shipped with 98 support. XP is the NT line of Windows and therefor has little to no DOS support.

>>9048207
ntvdm is emulation. just run dosbox

Yeah if you want to run DOS games, I don't know why you'd want to run XP. So you can use a video card that is too new to be supported by DOS games?
Seems to me if you want to run DOS games, you should ditch Windows and just run DOS.
Or, let's be honest here, just use DOSBox... works better than DOS did back in the day. Configuring DOSBox is far easier than editing CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT... and changing jumpers on your sound card and ugh I don't even want to think about it anymore.

>>9048207
For DOS you'll have to use DOSBox (VDMSound works too but it's more game specific, one works better for some games, the other for other games, you'll have to test) or build a balls to the wall 9x gaming PC or add a older 9x compatible GPU and sound card (like a 6000 or 7000 series GeForce and Audigy, still enough beef for XP games too) to this one, if possible, you can run 9x on PCIe based platforms with some work and dual boot between 9x and XP, if you want to play later XP era games too.

I have built a couple of 90s/00s machines. It's fun, but extremely taxing.

>>9049808
a rope and a chair for that tranny key caps

>>9048207
>without BIOS or driver hacks
>ended up using hacks anyway
Yup. Should have done a few minutes of research before clicking BIN. Maybe next time.

>>9049823
It's virtualization, not emulation. It runs on real hardware.

>>9049818
XP includes a real version of DOS, only virtualized. It's version 8 I think, and 7 in 9x. 6 being the last standalone release.

From what I can figure from searching is that it's mostly to do with the video driver dropping support for VESA BIOS features, and it seems they dropped some even as far back as GeForce 2 so to do better involves some seriously ancient hardware. And of course BC3000 is just a bugged game to begin with.

I do want to run newer XP era games as well and the GPU is otherwise fine for that providing a level of power comparable to the best DX9 cards.

>>9049974
They do run, obviously anything running on old unsupported text modes or requiring a fixed CPU speed will be a fail. But some of those later 3D DOS games really just want to soak up as much processing power as they possibly can to run well. And like I said even something like Elite runs just fine with no issues that I can see.

A "proper" DOS machine is a much bigger project fiddling with ancient, expensive hardware. And even building an "80's" DOS machine is quite different from a "90's" DOS machine. This is relatively recent, cheap and reliable. And I can use features like Xbox gamepads, USB for file transfers and joysticks etc. Could probably even go online with one of the Firefox forks. It's just more versatile.

DOSBox is just not something I have a good experience with.

>>9050071
only some versions of the GPU I got are affected and need patching, I just got unlucky with mine

>>9050095
Windows XP DOS box (not to be confused with DOSBox) is extremely lacking in compatibility when it comes to gaming and not very configurable.

You won't have problems with Windows 98 DOS box even with a GeForce 7800 graphics card.

For XP it makes sense to just stick to DOSBox and sometimes VDMSound .

>>9050095
>A "proper" DOS machine is a much bigger project fiddling with ancient, expensive hardware. And even building an "80's" DOS machine is quite different from a "90's" DOS machine.
You can build a universal DOS/Win9x machine with multiple graphics cards and video cards. Timing problems can be fixed even under real DOS with TSR utilities.

>>9050095
>And I can use features like Xbox gamepads
VDMSound under 9x lets you use the same features.

>USB for file transfers and joysticks etc. Could probably even go online with one of the Firefox forks.
A DOS/Win9x machine would let you do the same.

>>9050095
>USB for file transfers
There's ISA USB cards that mount memory sticks as drives.

>>9050191
98 has no xbox drivers, no exfat support, needs specialty USB drivers, limited wifi support, it's very limited in terms of connectivity compared to XP.

>>9050185
as I understand it the main problem for compatibility is the video driver itself, and those problems go way back, I don't think there's a substantial difference between kepler/fermi and older cards in that regard, and ATI is supposed to be even worse with compatibility.

>>9050241
>98 has no xbox drivers, no exfat support, needs specialty USB drivers, limited wifi support, it's very limited in terms of connectivity compared to XP.
It does, there's Duke and 360 USB gamepad drivers. It has FAT32 and NTFS support, I don't know why you'd need exFAT, it's not a requirement for USB storage. There's 802.11g WiFi adapters with WPA2 support for 98.

>needs specialty USB drivers
What does this even mean? It uses standard USB drivers, just download from your vendor for your USB 1.x or 2.0 controller.

>>9050241
>as I understand it the main problem for compatibility is the video driver itself
All games will run, some might just need wrappers for specific features that newer cards dropped or use a older card for those.
ATi actually has better 9x compatibility and retained legacy features longer in their drivers, like fog tables.

>>9050095
blessed eliteposter

>>9050271
from what I can read ATI never really properly supported fog tables in the first place, that is also early directx/windows features and not DOS

>all games will run
from what I've read there will be some issues with various text display modes, and this comes down to the video driver itself and is a very old issue that even geforce 2 had
while the audio config program displays fine in text mode the joystick checker program freaks out the visuals for me

but that I can live with, the mouse going bonkers in BC3000AD is making it barely playable however

running it without VDMsound seems to help somewhat but obviously then the standard sound emulation in ntvdm runs like shit even on this super OP cpu

>>9050443
>from what I can read ATI never really properly supported fog tables in the first place
I've seen the opposite. Anyways I was talking in general, ATi has longer support for Win9x than Nvidia.

>that is also early directx/windows features and not DOS
You were the one who bought Windows graphics card compatibility up. For DOS you don't need drivers, just something that works with VESA for some games.

>from what I've read there will be some issues with various text display modes
Some specific cards can have problems with some specific games.

>and this comes down to the video driver itself and is a very old issue that even geforce 2 had
There's no drivers for video under DOS, only VESA. Drivers would play a role under Windows.

>while the audio config program displays fine in text mode the joystick checker program freaks out the visuals for me
>but that I can live with, the mouse going bonkers in BC3000AD is making it barely playable however
If VDMSound doesn't work, use DOSBox. XP's DOS layer is far worse than DOSBox, I have no idea why you'd want to use it, it's not "native" either, it emulates a lot of DOS calls and is very broken.

>running it without VDMsound seems to help somewhat but obviously then the standard sound emulation in ntvdm runs like shit even on this super OP cpu
Sure it's configured right? Never had problems with SB16 emulation under VDMSound with even a 700MHz P3.

>>9050865
>For DOS you don't need drivers, just something that works with VESA for some games.
Yes and that's something that most windows cards have trouble with. To get better results you need to back to actual DOS video cards which is really ancient stuff.

>use DOSBox
it has tearing, it has massive input lag, it has performance issues. why would I use it for anything that doesn't absolutely require it? especially the kind of performance issues where a game needs a certain cpu speed, but something in the game still runs slower than it should compared to h/w, so performance tanks at the "right" cpu speed, and if you increase the cycles something else runs too fast. it's crazy issues like that which keeps anything from running "right". of course, running a fast cpu doesn't help there since it will be too fast anyway. but point being it's not good for the games that need it and it's not good for the games that don't since it's too slow for the high intensive 3D games. it's just not good in general.

>it's not "native" either
it's a virtual machine, not emulation. the actual code still runs on the actual cpu in the hardware compatibility mode

>Sure it's configured right?
you didn't read or understand. VDMsound seems to make the mouse issues worse, sound emulation is fine. but if you turn it off, then you fall back to standard ntvdm sound emulation, which is slow as shit

>>9051070
>Yes and that's something that most windows cards have trouble with. To get better results you need to back to actual DOS video cards which is really ancient stuff.
Not really, there's compatibility tables made by people that test different cards with different VESA versions and games. Even a late 8000 series GeForce card will be fine. Very few games exist that would actually have problems and using a period correct card is still not perfect since it breaks other games again.

>it has tearing, it has massive input lag, it has performance issues.
That means you're misconfiguring it. There shouldn't be any issues and any added latency should only be a frame if using OpenGL.
Your XP DOS layer has actually a lot of problems.

>and if you increase the cycles something else runs too fast.
Don't tell me you actually don't have per game configuration files? Register a filetype for .dosbox that runs the DOSBox.exe and copy the default dosbox.conf files into a game folder, then rename it to game-name.dosbox and configure it for that specific game, make a shortcut from it to the desktop with the games name and icon if you want (or into the games directory) and remove the .dosbox from the end of the shortcut.

There's no DOS game that would not run full speed on even a early Core 2 Duo CPU with high resolutions, unless you're doing something wrong. Chasm at 768p, Quake at 768p, Duke 3D at 600p, Blood at 768p, Terminator at 600p, etc.

>it's a virtual machine, not emulation. the actual code still runs on the actual cpu in the hardware compatibility mode
It's a compatibility layer, it's not even a true virtual machine, it emulates DOS calls on a NT kernel.

>>9051070
>the actual code still runs on the actual cpu in the hardware compatibility mode
Why is that important to you? That causes more problems than it fixes since not all old games work well running natively on modern CPUs, even CPUs from 15 years ago. You'll also have a much harder time dealing with timing configuration, many games will run too fast or be broken. Try playing Daggerfall or Wing Commander.

>you didn't read or understand. VDMsound seems to make the mouse issues worse, sound emulation is fine. but if you turn it off, then you fall back to standard ntvdm sound emulation, which is slow as shit
VDMSound isn't for every game as I said.

>>9051107
>Not really, there's compatibility tables made by people that test different cards with different VESA versions and games. Even a late 8000 series GeForce card will be fine. Very few games exist that would actually have problems and using a period correct card is still not perfect since it breaks other games again.
Also none of that matters with DOSBox, so unless you actually go very old hardware if you want absolutely the most era appropriate experience, there's no reason not to use DOSBox.

>>9049974
Fuck off boomer. Your generation killed fun

>>9051070
>why would I use it for anything that doesn't absolutely require it?
You're the one complaining about XP's DOS layer not cutting it by the way, should be a obvious hint.

>it's a virtual machine, not emulation.
You mean it's virtualization. Virtual machines can still be emulated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine
>In computing, a virtual machine (VM) is the virtualization/emulation of a computer system.

Not to mention as said, it's not even correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_DOS_machine#Windows_NTVDM

>In order to execute DOS programs, NTVDM loads NTIO.SYS which in turn loads NTDOS.SYS, which executes a modified COMMAND.COM in order to run the application that was passed to NTVDM as command-line argument. The 16-bit real-mode system files are stripped down derivations of their MS-DOS 5.0 equivalents IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM[1] with all hard-wired assumptions on the FAT file system removed and using the invalid opcode 0xC4 0xC4 to bop down into the 32-bit NTVDM to handle the requests.

>32-bit DOS emulation is present for DOS Protected Mode Interface (DPMI) and 32-bit memory access. This layer converts the necessary extended and expanded memory calls for DOS functions into Windows NT memory calls. wowexec.exe is the emulation layer that emulates 16-bit Windows. Windows 2000 and Windows XP added Sound Blaster 2.0 emulation.[22] 16-bit virtual device drivers and DOS block device drivers (e.g., RAM disks) are not supported. Inter-process communication with other subsystems can take place through OLE, DDE and named pipes.

>>9051110
>Why is that important to you?
Because it means you get good performance with no lag.

>>9051107
>Don't tell me you actually don't have per game configuration files?
And how would that help? You're still not able to READ or UNDERSTAND what is being told to you. So the conversation is over. Fuck off.

>>9051143
You mentioned a Ivy Bridge dual core CPU, there should be no performance problems.
What are you doing? Setting DOSBox cycles to the highest they go or setting them to MAX or something?

I use a 2008 dual core CPU and there's not a single DOS game it can't play full speed even at highest resolution and no noticable latency, there's obviously something wrong somewhere.

>>9051147
>And how would that help?
You can configure everything per game and have a easy way to launch it with a single shortcut, no different than a Windows DOS shortcut.

>You're still not able to READ or UNDERSTAND what is being told to you. So the conversation is over. Fuck off.
You're not reading apparently. You have obvious problems with your setup.

Why do you even ask for help but ignore every single post by even every other anon who tried to help. Have fun.

>>9049808
cringe keyboard

>>9051171
>it has tearing, it has massive input lag, it has performance issues. why would I use it for anything that doesn't absolutely require it? especially the kind of performance issues where a game needs a certain cpu speed, but something in the game still runs slower than it should compared to h/w, so performance tanks at the "right" cpu speed, and if you increase the cycles something else runs too fast. it's crazy issues like that which keeps anything from running "right".
>it has tearing, it has massive input lag, it has performance issues. why would I use it for anything that doesn't absolutely require it? especially the kind of performance issues where a game needs a certain cpu speed, but something in the game still runs slower than it should compared to h/w, so performance tanks at the "right" cpu speed, and if you increase the cycles something else runs too fast. it's crazy issues like that which keeps anything from running "right".
>it has tearing, it has massive input lag, it has performance issues. why would I use it for anything that doesn't absolutely require it? especially the kind of performance issues where a game needs a certain cpu speed, but something in the game still runs slower than it should compared to h/w, so performance tanks at the "right" cpu speed, and if you increase the cycles something else runs too fast. it's crazy issues like that which keeps anything from running "right".
>it has tearing, it has massive input lag, it has performance issues. why would I use it for anything that doesn't absolutely require it? especially the kind of performance issues where a game needs a certain cpu speed, but something in the game still runs slower than it should compared to h/w, so performance tanks at the "right" cpu speed, and if you increase the cycles something else runs too fast. it's crazy issues like that which keeps anything from running "right".

>>9051216
I didn't say I don't believe you, I said you just configured it wrong.

>>9051216
>accidentally greentexting that essay
lol

>>9048207
running dos games on xp? lolwut

>>9051171
>Why do you even ask for help but ignore every single post by even every other anon who tried to help. Have fun.
I spent all my free covid money buying old computer parts on ebay so people could tell me what a great retro battlestation I have, not so I could play games. Fucking dumbass.

>>9049818
Yeah, I was advocating that OP consider a late XP build for a window of late ME/2000/XP and early Win7 games. For DOS being native, I'd rather a 98SE build, which I am closer to completing.

>>9050056
>>9051176
I don't have much of a choice but to choose Chinese made keycaps. Everywhere else has custom machined ones of different materials that I would like but is well beyond affordability. They are very inexpensive but feel good with a nice textured PBT.

XP64 is also worth a look, it break 4Gb memory and is based on Win 2003 Server.
It also support a bit later hardware.

>>9053171
>XP64 is also worth a look
At that point just install any new x64 windows. The interesting features are all with 32-bit support.

>it break 4Gb memory
32-bit winxp actually supports more than 4gb memory with a memory extension patch that is included in SP3 so it doesn't matter, 32-bit programs will only eat up to 2GB anyway

I'm running 4+2gb with no issue on 32-bit sp3

>>9053171
If you have a 64-bit CPU and more than 4GB of RAM, I'd recommend XP x64.

>>9053449
>At that point just install any new x64 windows. The interesting features are all with 32-bit support.
Worse compatibility from games and hardware of the time though.

>32-bit winxp actually supports more than 4gb memory with a memory extension patch that is included in SP3 so it doesn't matter, 32-bit programs will only eat up to 2GB anyway
Patching PAE to support more than 4GB on 32bit XP breaks many things though that work fine on XP 64-bit, like Creative drivers and EAX (we're on /vr/, so things like this matter) or some USB controllers and devices, since you need to either patch your usbport.sys or use the one from Win2k3.
Plus you're still using PAE, there's a measurable performance impact and I've measured slightly performance improvements even when running 32-bit programs under XP 64-bit compared to even 32-bit without PAE.

>>9053587
Socket 754 Athlon64 on a NF3 mobo, 7900GS AGP. 4Gb RAM for now.

>>9050056
>>9051176
go back

>>9053587
my creative and usb drivers works fine

>>9053449
>32-bit programs will only eat up to 2GB anyway
Only if they aren't large address aware. You're also losing on memory that can be used transparently as cache.
Not to mention that if you have several graphics cards or RAID controllers and the hardware reserved memory, you'll only have like 2.75GB left of that 4GB address space that non-PAE patched XP will give you.

>>9053636
It works fine as long as you don't use PAE, as you said it's fine to run XP on 4+2GB, you'll just be limited to 4GB total address space.

>>9053449
>32-bit programs will only eat up to 2GB anyway
Only if they aren't large address aware. You're also losing on memory that can be used transparently as cache.
Not to mention that if you have several graphics cards or RAID controllers with the hardware reserved memory, you'll only have like 2.75GB left of that 4GB address space that non-PAE patched XP will give you.

>>9053636
It works fine as long as you don't use PAE, as you said it's fine to run XP on 4+2GB, you'll just be limited to 4GB total address space.

Suggesting a Win98 PC is great and all, but the real kicker with DOS is that you really want an ISA sound card unless you want to deal with the IRQ hell and general incompatibility of PCI cards. You do get better compatibility by running DOS games through a DOS box in Win98, but it's still an overall shit show that's not worth the effort. A good compromise however is a PCI sound card for Win9x games and an ISA card for DOS games in the same motherboard, just make sure that you disable any legacy supoort that may exist on the drivers for the PCI sound card so you don't have IRQ conflicts.

So with that in mind, motherboards with ISA slots tend to be more expensive since there's more demand for that era of PCs, coupled with the fact that PCs up until the late-486 era used NiCd batteries that like to corrode and eat the shit out of components and copper. Generally you should be fine with anything PCI for a video card, though mid/late-90s DOS does have several games that have proprietary hardware-accelerated graphics from a wide variety of video cards. If you want to stick to a single DOS PC, go with a socket 370 mobo with ISA and support for VIA C3 CPUs as you can both freely set the CPU multiplier and also disable internal cache for slowing down the PC for speed-sensitive games without generally needing to resort to MOSLO.

>>9054458
Also, it kinda goes without saying but USB HID support in DOS is a complete meme and you will have a terrible time trying to set it up beyond BIOS support for USB keyboards.

Another alternative for a DOS PC are socket 7 mobos that use AT power supplies, the mobos that lack AGP are generally cheap and with a wide range of interesting CPUs, along with the ability to set the CPU multiplier/bus speed with jumpers, disabling internal cache and (if you're lucky) a turbo button they are far easier to find than the socket 370+ISA+VIA C3 suggestion I made above. Only problem is that AT power supplies are universally trash and you'll really should use an ATX->AT adapter and preferrably a picoPSU or a decent quality PSU. The lack of -5V only matters for early 90s sound cards.

>>9054458
and all that is why I don't want to do it and stick with the XP solution, ntvdm and vdmsound is actually great and it does still run dosbox in a pinch

the problem is this vbios bug that I don't know how to work around that causes some issues

I actually found a Ps/2 connector for the business shitbox I used and have a ps/2 m/k set connected to it, just because I could

I might even be interested in the mister 486 core but that's almost as expensive as a period dos machine right now

>>9048207
what a waste of time, just use PCEm, DOSBox and WINEvm instead of rotting hardware. Enjoy your house fire.

>>9054650
tried em all
every one of them feels wrong, sounds wrong, runs wrong, it's all wrong

this is a very small and energy efficient pc

Windows XP? Sounds like a total waste of time to me, honestly.
Just fucking emulate.
Hell, you don't even NEED to emulate most of them.

...And DOS games? Win XP's Dos layer isn't good enough. Every Dos layer after Win 95 is shittier than than the one before it.

Seriously, just emulate. You've only got so much time on this earth, and it's over faster than you think. Don't waste it configuring bullshit and sourcing old hardware, and dealing with the inevitable failure of it. Like you, the hardware only lives for so long.

>>9054661
emulation sucks
getting this hardware was easy, XP is supported on relatively recent hardware

emulation is where you will spend hours and days configuring stuff only to still get a sub-par result

real hardware is plug and play

>>9053628
>g-go b-ACK!

u anons r wrong, for win98 u dont need old motherboards/cpus/isa, its gonna be harder to find good parts and obviously not cheap, u would only go for this if ur a hardcore enthusiast

>VIA CPUs r not great, fact
>u dont need a socket 7/SS7
>ur gonna have problems with sound card IRQs no matter what u use

u just need something a bit more upto date thats compatible, i have an old socket 7 but i dont use it, instead i have an MSI PM8PM-V from around 2006, it has a via chipset so its dos sound compatible and has official driver support for windows 95 up to windows 7 (intel/amd boards from this era r not sound card/dos compatible and will not have official chipset drivers for win9x) , i use a sound blaster live, an fx5200 128mb 64bit, a celeron D 360 single core 3.46ghz that supports 64bit Os's (it does support dual cores), with upto 2gb ddr2 ram, it runs dos/95/98se/me/2000/neptune/xp/vista/7/10.

>>9054458
ISA sound cards ARE the IRQ hell before PnP became a standard, anon.
Also no, the mobos cost the same unless you're a retard buying off eBay.

Also why is IRQ such a problem? You can configure it manually.

>>9054678
>real hardware is plug and play

Have you forgotten what PC gaming used to be like?

>>9054873
dunno what to tell you I never had many problems with it other than the random video card dying on me

>>9054873
Do you expect a 20 year old to know how things were like 30 years ago? No.

>>9054953
This board is literally filled with shitposts with 20 year olds and younger claiming exactly that. Dozens of retarded children couldn't possibly be wrong. Right?

>>9055319
I am +40 and my only purpose here is to call you a faggot. How does this make you feel?

I am in the process of getting this 386 machine going, I'm currently waiting for a I/O card to arrive( the one that came in the PC is ded)

>>9055421
what a shit picture

>>9055405
Honestly I feel pretty chuffed that you were so booty blasted by someone stating a well known fact that you felt compelled to larp as someone twice your age.

The era around the release of crysis felt like the first new golden age of pc

Damn I wanted an Nvidia 8800 GTS so bad (too poor for a gtx)

I have contemplated building a core 2 quad 8800 gtx build.
Run xp sp3

Feels old but new

>>9055558
I was still stuck on Socket A with AGP
I bought a HD 3650 AGP version, but I never bothered trying to run Crysis

>>9055558
Do it, sounds like fun.

>>9055558
the real legendary card was the 8800 GT, shit got rebranded even into the 2xx's and still ran new games then

that plus OG nehalem was the absolute shit, and DDR2 was more or less free due to overproduction

>>9055934
I remember jumping from an ATI 9600 Pro to the 8800GT. It was an insane leap. Paired it with a dual-core Pentium OC'ed from 1.8 GHz to 3GHz. Shit was so cash back then.

>Boot up Dell 4600
>Fresh install winxp pro sp 3
>old user files get miraculously transferred to shared documents
>only find out because I put in my Diablo 1 cd and found my saves from 2011
>can't delete the files
>can't delete them in safe mode
>can't delete them with cmd prompts
>removal tools and malware protections require internet connections or are freemium shit that "scan" your files only to show nothing.
Welp. At least they don't take up more than 2.1gb.

>>9055968
if the files get transferred then it's not a fresh install

>>9055973
I selected for everything to be removed. I had to find a ton of drivers to get stuff to work as well. Should I run the disc again?

>>9055992
>I selected for everything to be removed.
Yes, that's not a fresh install. A fresh install is zeroing out the drive and then installing as if it was new.

What can't w10 with modern components run?

>>9056007
Sorry for being retarded. Will I need more than the six or seven drivers I already have saved after a raid 0?

>>9056057
Majority of Win9x and NT games will run with little patching or wrapping. Rest can be emulated, including DOS.
But even a modern computer with a CRT hooked up to it can still have latency or accuracy problems, dedicated hardware has its own pros and cons but purely from a gaming experience it's usually the better option if possible.
Not to forget if you're old enough, you probably get a sweet nostgalgia shot each time you use it.

>>9055968
Use a Ubuntu LiveCD to deal with those files. Fresh format and install would have been better, sounds like the filesystem is on its last legs.

why not just go with windows98se for full dos support instead of some hacked up solution.

>>9056113
I wouldn't be too surprised. Someone suggested this on a forum and they ended up using Lubuntu 14.04 since ubuntu 16.04 was too slow apparently. I have a usb for 16.04 but I guess I'll need to a burn a cd.

>>9056130
Yeah, Pentium 4, right? Get a older Ubuntu 32-bit image.
You machine might boot from USB, have you tried?

Anyways, I also recommend you burn this instead: https://www.plop.at/en/bootmanager/download.html
You can use it to boot USB sticks even if your BIOS doesn't support it, then just write a older Ubuntu release to USB.

In the long runs it's better since you'll be able to boot any OS from USB if your mobo doesn't let you do it natively.
But if you have plenty of empty discs, might as well just burn Ubuntu outright.

>>9056142
Yessir, pentium 4. Just tried 16.04 USB and was surprised how fast I got to the error screen telling me I need something for i686 CPU. This is fun I'm happy I didn't see the incredible slow downs another user mentioned. I appreciate the link I'll burn a disc since I have lots of those and precious few usbs.

>>9056109

>Patches, European fixes, Emulation, emulation, emulation-

Its just like.. sometimes its easier to just not fuck with all this old shit. Unless you can solder new caps, repair damage, find hardware that is in perfectly working condition, then why even do any of this? If you got the money, time and the talent then sure! Go nuts! I've had every hardware configuration since Windows 3.1, over a dozen machines, a current modern PC accompanied by an older Pentium 4 running XP and the majority of what's really worth running is either pirate-able and easily emulated OR SOMEONE SOMEWHERE has figured out how to get it running just fine.

I don't know anymore man. I tried all this shit like 7 years ago and its just a total nightmare personally speaking. I grew up on DOS and that period of time was just so unpredictable and their are so many variations of hardware to go through.. but more power to you if it makes you feel good.

>>9056109
I don't need to patch or emulate any of my games. This is a fake problem

>>9056149
>>9056153
Did you guys just post after reading the first line of anon post? He was literally defending dedicated hardware

>>9056142
Didn't like the cd. Guess I need to go out and buy a usb.

>>9056161
Stay mad

>Tfw no computer that can run did
It's not fair
It's all so expensive

>>9056057
8-bit dos programs
16-bit windows programs
dx3-8 games
glide games
software rendered games
games with hardware 3d audio
it still does midi but it is bugged and skips

anything 32-bit, dx9 and onwards still run fine, opengl support was never dropped at all so even 1.1 shit runs

you can fuck around with patches, wrappers, emulation, whatever for the older stuff but it's never quite right and takes up your time and effort

>>9056483
>but it's never quite right and takes up your time and effort
I feel this about making an early 2000s machine right now. Why is a GPU upgrade for something from back then over $100.00?

>>9056483
>16-bit windows programs

There is actually a 16-bit NTVDM you can set up to run windows 3.1 software natively in modern windows.

It probably opens a ton of security holes, so do it at your own risk.

Still, there's probably not many 16bit viruses floating around online these days.

>>9054868
IRQ isn't a problem when you know how to navigate it, but I mention it purely because I assume most people in this thread are zoomer retards, and judging from comments like >>9054758 who clearly has never ran any DOS game beyond whatever YTcelebs run as benchmarks it was a safe assumption
>>9055421
Good luck with the PCChips gamble, anon
>>9056483
There's no such thing as 8-bit DOS programs. There's 16-bit DOS programs which have different memory models as CPUs up to the 286 access memory in 64K segments, in addition to using EMS, XMS or in extremely rare cases like Ultima 7 have their own memory manager for accessing >1MB, and then there's 32-bit DOS programs that usually have a flat memory model assisted by DPMI, the best known implementions being DOS/4GW and CWSDPMI but will on the rare occasion still use EMS or XMS.
Software rendered games almost frequently use ddraw.dll, which was made obsolete by DX8. Games which use GDI are more likely to be released around the dawn of Win9x, and should theoretically be compatible with Win10.
In addition to Glide games, there's plenty of other proprietary hardware-accelerated APIs, the best examples for seeing a wide range of renderers for a single game are Mechwarrior 2 and POD Gold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWzWdwj9NvU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU5Zi69QPQs

>>9056654
pretty sure the earliest pc cpu's were 8-bit

>>9056654
>There's no such thing as 8-bit DOS programs.
There's plenty of Disk Operating Systems on 8-bit machines.

>>9049808
How old are you ?
Autism or just fag ?

>>9056334
DOS gaming machines are so expensive it's bullshit

>>9056334
>>9056892
Lol, US hours on 4chan

>>9056901
duder it's fucking bullshit

so how do I play dos games?

>>9056997
real dos machine
dos emulation e.g. dosbox 86box
ntvdm
winevdm
mister fpga 486 core
source ports, windows ports, scummvm etc

>>9057050
can you get me a real dos machine

Hey whats a good blobber for a beginner to the genre

>>9057058
no, try ebay

>>9057083
give me real advice.

>>9057085
Lurk online for offices closing and selling all their shit. Was super common during covid. You're better off going to your city's pc recycle depot if they also tolerate the buy/sell/trade crowd

Is scummvm an emulator?

>>9057095
it's an engine

>>9056710
Not the anon you're coping to but still lmao at your cope

>>9057124
>IBM PC DOS (and the separately sold MS-DOS) and its predecessor, 86-DOS, was based on Digital Research's CP/M—the dominant disk operating system for 8-bit Intel 8080 and Zilog Z80 microcomputers—but instead ran on Intel 8086 16-bit processors.
Imagine not knowing basic computer history

alright I tried dosbox, as expected there are performance issues with it, but it is playable. I had to install a replacement dos extender because the one derek used originally was only meant for use within windows and messes up on pure dos leading to extreme load times

I figured maybe I can get around the performance issues by using the glide version, and nglide explicitly supports dosbox glide passthrough for bc3000. but what I actually get is the hud and cockpit is missing and has black squares on the screen instead. I tried various versions of dosbox including the original glide patch but it always shows up bugged. nglide has a picture of it working on its website.

so there is no way of getting good performance in this game, dosbox is slow and awful, mouse is bugged in ntvdm and glide passthrough is completely broken

>>9057170
Why are you playing Battlecruiser 3000AD 2.0 in DOS? Just play the Windows version with glide wrapper.

>>9057175
there is no windows version, it's supposed to run in dos mode on windows, but not in windows proper. battlecruiser millenium is the first windows version

>>9057182
Then you don't have 2.0.

>>9057192
I downloaded 2.0 from dereks website

>>9057130
Imagine not knowing basic computer history, but imagining you do because you read a wikipedia article

>>9057225
>imagine thinking you know something because you looked it up

>>9057225
>>9057226
Yeah, hence why I posted the quote from Wikipedia AFTER I already said 8-bit DOSes exist in a previous post.
Big brain retards here, I swear.

>>9057226
>imagine thinking you know something because you desperately googled for something to support your cope after you got caught zooming on the internet
>>9057237
>Yeah, hence why I posted the quote from Wikipedia AFTER I already coped about being called out for zooming on the internet

Imagine coping this hard! Imagine being so autistic you can't admit to a simple mistake, instead seething and coping with mental gymnastics and ackshuallies.
Autism. Not even once.

>>9056654
>I assume most people in this thread are zoomer retards, and judging from comments like >>9054758 who clearly has never ran any DOS game beyond whatever YTcelebs run

im not even sure what u mean by this, im 36yo btw, and i couldnt even name 1 YTceleb.
im guessing u mean i have only ran the most popular Dos games. which for me is half right, even more so for zoomers, games like doom/duke/wolfenstein etc.

the oldest game i run on this system is jetfighter II from 1990, theres not many who r gonna play n e thing older than that, which will require a pc thats sub S7, also most average people arent gonna know shit about setting/configuring IRQ's and configuring autoexec/config, freeing up conventional memory for EMS/XMS, and even something simple like setting up drivers in dos, my point is they dont need to over complicate things, using old hardware they are not familiar with, when they can use something a bit newer which will do just fine.

Does Win10 run old 98/2k era games? If not, what's better: keeping a full VM around or WINE? There's also ReactOS which I haven't tried in years

>>9056890
Before there was a /vr/, I originated from /h/. It was a long time ago.

>>9057575
If the game is well known, or better yet had its source code released at some point, the 'community' probably released fixes to play them on modern Windows.

https://mega.nz/folder/CldGAahb#yn_8LkRHraywPgKJMp5pqA/folder/zgsXQIKA

Late PCI, early and middle AGP video chips DOS game compatibility test results
https://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/

>>9051118
Nigger, his generation created fun.

>>9057795
Cool but what I posted isn’t in that folder, nor are any other 90s edutainment games I’d like to play

DOS games have a clear solution of using DOSbox or even a MiSTer, but from what I can tell early non DOS Windows games require a VM to work well

>>9057589
>I originated from /h/.
welp...that explains things

>>9057895
If it's an old direct3d (directx) game the dgvoodoo wrapper will probably make it run on Win10.

>>9049808
I see nipples on that spacebar. This is a blue board sir

>>9057806
Yeah the list was already mentioned, irrelevant though I'd you use emulators

>>9057347
I think you're confusing anons, I was the one who pointed out 8-bit DOS, I think you mean the anon who didn't know about it. Otherwise I fail to see how knowing something is a mistake.

>>9057575
>>9057795
Most games don't even need patches, I still can just pop in my original disc and install and play
Worst case I just need to use a crack since copy protection is broken

Even most games in that mega folder just have a wrapper or two with them and for directx it's not even mandatory

>>9058219
>for directx it's not even mandatory
other way around, opengl is fully supported but glide, directdraw and dx3-8 needs wrappers

>>9049808
i hope you are throat fucked by a somalian until your tonsils give out you hedonistic queer

>>9058447
I have no problem playing DirectX 6 or 8 games without wrappers. Wrappers are more needed for specific compatibility reasons, like one game might have shadow problems without or not sync over 60Hz, etc.

>>9058489
>I have no problem playing DirectX 6 or 8 games without wrappers.
the runtimes literally aren't included with anything newer than xp