Running an old DOS program

Industrial One wrote in news:c9de8984-3985-4060-
:

On Mar 12, 3:06*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Industrial One wrote in news:75664770-1038-4
f6b-
:

Ugh, zshare sucks.

You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment. (Which of course
means I already thought that zshare sucks, in exactly as many words..)

http://www.sendspace.com/file/uihtl4
http://www.sendspace.com/file/l6lasd

Can't see those either. Doesn't matter, I got the general idea anyway. (B
ut
whatever format that is, avoid it! Stay with XviD, or even WMV, otherwise
people likely have to fight to get it, then can't see it even if they get
that far. Always go with formats that everyone can see. I couldn't see th
ose,
or even identify the streams im MPC.

Good lord man...

They are Lagarith Lossless format. XviD sucks dick, nobody uses it
anymore and it doesn't support high-quality RGB like Lagarith. x264
does, but finding the right splitters to get it to play back correctly
is something that's a pain in the ass for me let alone a noob.
Download K-Lite codec pack and you'll never have to fight to play back
99% of formats out there.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/bzgp0v
http://www.sendspace.com/file/fjrv26

^ ****ty XviD format.


One of the groups this is crossposted to is a W98 group. Right now the only
person helping you is in that group. W98 users tend to use it for slower
machines, (in my case for its efficiency on off-grid solar power, and in
reducing OS demands in favour of program requirements). Even if we can
download HD formats, we might not be able to play them because they make huge
demands on CPU power and video support.

For what it's worth, XviD is in HUGE use, all over Usenet and plenty else,
but I never heard of Lagarith before. Don't much care to. As you say, finding
all the right stuff to handle all the latest video IS a pain! That's why I
said go with older formats when you're expecting any and all to view stuff.
K-lite and other codec packs don't cure all for everyone anyway. On W98 they
won't even let us install (unless we go with older ones that lack the support
you're saying we should have). We'd have to use KernelEx to run new ones. Not
that this is a weakness, but it IS another example of why you should not
assume that the latest and greatest is miraculously suitable for all. That
kind of logic is like saying everyone must use .NET in some imaginary world
where no-one heard of the Win32 API, never mind Linux.

You have compatibility problems with stuff, so it's not wise to assume that
other people should have compatibility with unusual formats, especially with
lossless video formats which few people would even contemplate downloading,
even now. Shuttling lossless video is a task rarely done outside a fast video
workstation with SCSI disks, never mind loose on the net, whatever the file
size. I'm sure you could point me to special interest groups who do it but
it's not a thing to expect us all to do.

Industrial One wrote:

Good lord man...

They are Lagarith Lossless format. XviD sucks dick, nobody uses it
anymore and it doesn't support high-quality RGB like Lagarith. x264
does, but finding the right splitters to get it to play back correctly
is something that's a pain in the ass for me let alone a noob.
Download K-Lite codec pack and you'll never have to fight to play back
99% of formats out there.

You don't deserve any help with that attitude. It is quite insulting.
In addition to what Lostgallifreyan wrote, let me mention that I *do*
have K-lite c-pack installed, yet I could not play your video either. I
don't have the *latest* K-lite, of course, just the last where ffdshow
has encoding choice settings; I had to un-install the later one.
Never, ever, expect people to use new-fangled ills, OK? Everybody
that matters uses XviD. Those that don't, don't. Who cares about
lossless *video* ?!?! I'd understand audio, and to a lesser extent,
photos, but video? Stuff and nonsense! Next you'll expect people to use
smartphones!

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.

HAHAHAHA!!

Calm down dudes, what's the problem here?

Obviously I am much more adept at video technology than you guys as I
am an enthusiast in the field, just like you guys are with old OSes. I
see you don't cope well with role-reversal. You seem only capable of
modesty when you have an opportunity to lecture but not learn. Rather
anti-intellectual stance there, don'cha think?

Sometimes it seems to me its the only reason your kind frequents
groups and forums like these, searching for narcissistic validations
out of newbs.

Grow up, I had the balls to come here to admit I knew jack **** about
something and ask for directions. Now anyone who looks up to me for my
DVD and Blu-ray rips can find a reason not to look up to me anymore by
finding this thread and realizing I'm not omniscient. See how that
works?

Anyway...

1. There was a good reason I used a lossless codec for those specific
video clips I uploaded. The content was very redundant and the
resulting output files were 500 and 1500 KB respectively. Not so
massive like you assumed, right? If I used XviD, the output would've
been bigger and much worse quality as XviD would auto downsample the
colordepth to YV12 which would **** up the once-vibrant colors. XviD
is for movies, not for computer screencaps.

2. x264 is state-of-the-art and kicks the **** out of XviD which I
normally use, and it also supports YV24 (RGB) colorspace but as said
before, even I have issues setting up MPC to play it back properly
because this feature is too modern and lacks widespread support, hence
I used a format that's easier to play back.

3. XviD is not in widespread usage anymore and shouldn't be, the
quality blows at reasonable bitrates and high quality requires
unreasonably high bitrates. Even YouTube doesn't use XviD anymore.
Even an eeePC can playback 720p H264 so if you really are concerned
with power consumption and efficiency, you'd best stop using XviD. My
i7 can playback 1080p with only one core, and my TDP is 95W.

4. All I hear is "we're using win98, it doesn't support all the latest
codecs n ****"! Well, that's your field. You are the classic OS
genius, figure out how to get the latest **** to work without it
needing to be a hassle if you insist on using an unsupported, outdated
system. I reject Vista and M$'s new era of bloatware garbage too, but
can't say XP is guilty of such a thang. You's be extremists.

But yeah, seriously. I uploaded XviD samples like you requested.
Prioritize your bitching, mang.

HAHAHAHA!!

Calm down dudes, what's the problem here?

Obviously I am much more adept at video technology than you guys as I
am an enthusiast in the field, just like you guys are with old OSes. I
see you don't cope well with role-reversal. You seem only capable of
modesty when you have an opportunity to lecture but not learn. Rather
anti-intellectual stance there, don'cha think?

Sometimes it seems to me its the only reason your kind frequents
groups and forums like these, searching for narcissistic validations
out of newbs.

Grow up, I had the balls to come here to admit I knew jack **** about
something and ask for directions. Now anyone who looks up to me for my
DVD and Blu-ray rips can find a reason not to look up to me anymore by
finding this thread and realizing I'm not omniscient. See how that
works?

Anyway...

1. There was a good reason I used a lossless codec for those specific
video clips I uploaded. The content was very redundant and the
resulting output files were 500 and 1500 KB respectively. Not so
massive like you assumed, right? If I used XviD, the output would've
been bigger and much worse quality as XviD would auto downsample the
colordepth to YV12 which would **** up the once-vibrant colors. XviD
is for movies, not for computer screencaps.

2. x264 is state-of-the-art and kicks the **** out of XviD which I
normally use, and it also supports YV24 (RGB) colorspace but as said
before, even I have issues setting up MPC to play it back properly
because this feature is too modern and lacks widespread support, hence
I used a format that's easier to play back.

3. XviD is not in widespread usage anymore and shouldn't be, the
quality blows at reasonable bitrates and high quality requires
unreasonably high bitrates. Even YouTube doesn't use XviD anymore.
Even an eeePC can playback 720p H264 so if you really are concerned
with power consumption and efficiency, you'd best stop using XviD. My
i7 can playback 1080p with only one core, and my TDP is 95W.

4. All I hear is "we're using win98, it doesn't support all the latest
codecs n ****"! Well, that's your field. You are the classic OS
genius, figure out how to get the latest **** to work without it
needing to be a hassle if you insist on using an unsupported, outdated
system. I reject Vista and M$'s new era of bloatware garbage too, but
can't say XP is guilty of such a thang. You's be extremists.

But yeah, seriously. I uploaded XviD samples like you requested.
Prioritize your bitching, mang.

Industrial One wrote:

4. All I hear is "we're using win98, it doesn't support all the
latest codecs n ****"! Well, that's your field. You are the
classic OS genius, figure out how to get the latest **** to
work without it needing to be a hassle

I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know what led to your
rant, and really it doesn't matter.

With regard to your comment (above) about x264 (or is it h264?) not
being compatible with win-98, I'm not sure who's saying that, but it's
probably someone here with an anemic PC (pentium 2, 300 mhz or some junk
like that) and who's never tried kernelex and VLC (that is probably
about half the people who read this win-98 newsgroup).

I do a lot of downloading and I'm seeing more video's (movies, tv-rips)
being posted as MPEG-4 (x264) and not xvid, and a lot of other people
are bitching about the end of Xvid in a lot of different forums (and I
don't know what their problem is), but win-98 and VLC can play 264 ****
no problem, and so can my NetGear EVA9150 (which is what I use to play
movies and TV episodes I download from torrents and file-lockers on my
TV).

On Mar 12, 11:59*pm, 98 Guy wrote:
Industrial One wrote:
4. All I hear is "we're using win98, it doesn't support all the
latest codecs n ****"! Well, that's your field. You are the
classic OS genius, figure out how to get the latest **** to
work without it needing to be a hassle

I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know what led to your
rant, and really it doesn't matter.

They were helping me troubleshoot a DOS 6.22 problem and I uploaded
some screencaps to show the problem in a format Lostgallifreyan wasn't
able to play, so he got all sensitive and started bitching at me for
assuming he knew how to get them to play. I guess some people obtain
knowledge at the expense of social skills and offer help on forums for
narcissistic instead of altruistic reasons. or as I call them - dorks.

With regard to your comment (above) about x264 (or is it h264?) not
being compatible with win-98, I'm not sure who's saying that, but it's
probably someone here with an anemic PC (pentium 2, 300 mhz or some junk
like that) and who's never tried kernelex and VLC (that is probably
about half the people who read this win-98 newsgroup).

Most likely.

I do a lot of downloading and I'm seeing more video's (movies, tv-rips)
being posted as MPEG-4 (x264) and not xvid, and a lot of other people

XviD is MPEG-4 too, though it really should've been called MPEG-3. In
the ITU naming convention, XviD is the H.263 standard and MPEG-4 part
2 (ASP) is the ISO equivalent. Just like H.264 is MPEG-4 part 10
(AVC). I find the ITU terminology a lot simpler to follow. Don't
attempt to make sense out of them, I regret ever taking the time to do
so.


are bitching about the end of Xvid in a lot of different forums (and I
don't know what their problem is), but win-98 and VLC can play 264 ****

Problem is they are change-resistant fanboys who have no dick. Do
yourself a favor and don't attempt to understand them either, I regret
ever trying.

On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:07:02 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
put finger to keyboard and composed:

On Mar 9, 2:36*am, Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:06:13 -0800 (PST), Industrial One
put finger to keyboard and composed:

So I download DOS 7.1, then what? Do I have to install this on a thumb
drive to boot from it, and then do I cd to the directory with the
program I wanna run?

The program is not a game, btw. It's an emulator that runs ROMs
(games).

You could boot DOS from a USB drive or CD, and then create a RAM disk
via a line in autoxec.bat. If your app requires TEMP space, then SET
the TEMP directory to your RAM disk. Otherwise, if your app writes to
some other directory on the disc, then copy your app to your RAM drive
and launch it from there instead. All this could be done automatically
via appropriate lines in autoexec.bat.

If you could be more specific, perhaps one of us could expand on this
for you.

BTW, how much disc space does your DOS app occupy and how much RAM
does it require?

The application itself is around 300 KB, the roms are between 2 to 6
MB. RAM usage shouldn't be above 60 MB.

I set up DOS 7.1 with Virtualbox because this was more intuitive than
having to restart the comp every time to get around issues. This
virtualization **** is kinda cool, the only disappointing thing is the
fact that I can't browse my regular OS from it. The only way I could
copy files to the virtual DOS is making a CD ISO of the directory with
my app and loading from there.

This has failed, though. There is no sound and the emulator freezes
the moment I tried to load a game. How do you set color depth on
Virtualbox btw? It says its on 32-bit and needs 16-bit but I don't see
such option anywhere.

ISTM that you could follow the procedure used by Seagate in its
firmware updates. These packages boot to FreeDOS. They then create a
RAM drive and copy their executables to it. The program is then
launched from the RAM drive.

Some CD ISO based update packages incorporate a 1.44MB floppy diskette
image, while others incorporate a HDD image.

You can see what I mean if you use IsoBuster, Winimage, and 7-Zip to
analyse Seagate's CD ISOs:
http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/cr...p?DocId=207931

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

98 Guy

I am the one here that Running MS-DOS 622,

I ask him to send the name of the Game,

Now he needs to Zip-File it,
and send to::

http://hot-text.ath.cx/upload/

To see if have bugs in the DOS..


:/

On Mar 8, 12:06*pm, Industrial One wrote:
The program is not a game, btw. It's an emulator that runs ROMs

Which emulator? There might be a more elegant solution than trying to
run it in a DOS-like environment.

Hi,

Industrial One wrote:

The application itself is around 300 KB, the roms are between 2 to 6
MB. RAM usage shouldn't be above 60 MB.

60 MB? Okay, not that surprised, even DJGPP stuff uses a lot these
days, but it seems overkill for a few MB of data.

I set up DOS 7.1 with Virtualbox because this was more intuitive than
having to restart the comp every time to get around issues.

Yes, of course.

This virtualization **** is kinda cool, the only disappointing thing is the
fact that I can't browse my regular OS from it. The only way I could
copy files to the virtual DOS is making a CD ISO of the directory with
my app and loading from there.

You may be able to use MS NET and/or an FTP server. Check
lazybrowndog's networking guide. (Or if you later try VMware, then try
Eduardo's VMSMOUNT tool.)

http://lazybrowndog.net/freedos/virtualbox/

This has failed, though. There is no sound and the emulator freezes
the moment I tried to load a game. How do you set color depth on
Virtualbox btw? It says its on 32-bit and needs 16-bit but I don't see
such option anywhere.

Yeah, VBox has quite a few bugs in DOS emulation. If your cpu has VT-X
(which I guess not, sadly), it should work okay though. Too bad more
cpus don't support it.

Hi,

On Mar 11, 7:57*pm, Industrial One wrote:

I managed to install Soundblaster finally (I hate having a thousand
choices) and figured out why the sound was cracking up. When I set
core affinity to 1 the sound stopped crackling and was perfect. What
does core affinity have to do with sound quality, does anybody know?

In what, Windows or DOSBox? I'm not big on Windows internals, but I
think DOSBox uses SDL, and later versions (1.3 ??) are multi-
threaded / multi-core or whatever for better performance, though
DOSBox itself isn't. So maybe?? that's why? (Confusing.)

On Mar 30, 9:37*pm, Rugxulo wrote:
Hi,

Industrial One wrote:

The application itself is around 300 KB, the roms are between 2 to 6
MB. RAM usage shouldn't be above 60 MB.

60 MB? Okay, not that surprised, even DJGPP stuff uses a lot these
days, but it seems overkill for a few MB of data.

It was overkill actually, I set up a new VM with DOS 6.22 with 32 MB
of RAM this time and it works perfectly time. 60 MB was my upper
guestimate.

You may be able to use MS NET and/or an FTP server. Check
lazybrowndog's networking guide. (Or if you later try VMware, then try
Eduardo's VMSMOUNT tool.)

http://lazybrowndog.net/freedos/virtualbox/

Good to know, but it's allright. I never used a VM before so I
completely missed the point behind it which was to isolate itself
completely from the OS yet be operated from it. I thought it would
just be another directory on my hard disk where the files can be
manipulated from my physical OS.

I managed to install Soundblaster finally (I hate having a thousand
choices) and figured out why the sound was cracking up. When I set
core affinity to 1 the sound stopped crackling and was perfect. What
does core affinity have to do with sound quality, does anybody know?

In what, Windows or DOSBox? I'm not big on Windows internals, but I
think DOSBox uses SDL, and later versions (1.3 ??) are multi-
threaded / multi-core or whatever for better performance, though
DOSBox itself isn't. So maybe?? that's why? (Confusing.)

In the DOS VM, but on DOSBox too and this has happened with other
programs too. Could it be that my audio drivers are multithreaded or
something? I'm genuinely curious. This hasn't happened to anyone else,
apparently.

On Mar 30, 8:45*pm, Industrial One wrote:
On Mar 30, 9:37*pm, Rugxulo wrote:

Hi,

Industrial One wrote:

The application itself is around 300 KB, the roms are between 2 to 6
MB. RAM usage shouldn't be above 60 MB.

60 MB? Okay, not that surprised, even DJGPP stuff uses a lot these
days, but it seems overkill for a few MB of data.

It was overkill actually, I set up a new VM with DOS 6.22 with 32 MB
of RAM this time and it works perfectly time. 60 MB was my upper
guestimate.

You may be able to use MS NET and/or an FTP server. Check
lazybrowndog's networking guide. (Or if you later try VMware, then try
Eduardo's VMSMOUNT tool.)

http://lazybrowndog.net/freedos/virtualbox/

Good to know, but it's allright. I never used a VM before so I
completely missed the point behind it which was to isolate itself
completely from the OS yet be operated from it. I thought it would
just be another directory on my hard disk where the files can be
manipulated from my physical OS.

I managed to install Soundblaster finally (I hate having a thousand
choices) and figured out why the sound was cracking up. When I set
core affinity to 1 the sound stopped crackling and was perfect. What
does core affinity have to do with sound quality, does anybody know?

In what, Windows orDOSBox? I'm not big on Windows internals, but I
thinkDOSBoxuses SDL, and later versions (1.3 ??) are multi-
threaded / multi-core or whatever for better performance, though
DOSBoxitself isn't. So maybe?? that's why? (Confusing.)

In the DOS VM, but onDOSBoxtoo and this has happened with other
programs too. Could it be that my audio drivers are multithreaded or
something? I'm genuinely curious. This hasn't happened to anyone else,
apparently.

Almost all old programs do not use multiple threads. Setting affinity
to a single thread (or using Windows compatibilities modes which does
this automagically) is a common technique to get games to work that
don't like multiple processors.

Ronald Phillips wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:45 pm, Industrial One wrote:
On Mar 30, 9:37 pm, Rugxulo wrote:

Hi,
Industrial One wrote:
The application itself is around 300 KB, the roms are between 2 to 6
MB. RAM usage shouldn't be above 60 MB.
60 MB? Okay, not that surprised, even DJGPP stuff uses a lot these
days, but it seems overkill for a few MB of data.
It was overkill actually, I set up a new VM with DOS 6.22 with 32 MB
of RAM this time and it works perfectly time. 60 MB was my upper
guestimate.

You may be able to use MS NET and/or an FTP server. Check
lazybrowndog's networking guide. (Or if you later try VMware, then try
Eduardo's VMSMOUNT tool.)
http://lazybrowndog.net/freedos/virtualbox/
Good to know, but it's allright. I never used a VM before so I
completely missed the point behind it which was to isolate itself
completely from the OS yet be operated from it. I thought it would
just be another directory on my hard disk where the files can be
manipulated from my physical OS.

I managed to install Soundblaster finally (I hate having a thousand
choices) and figured out why the sound was cracking up. When I set
core affinity to 1 the sound stopped crackling and was perfect. What
does core affinity have to do with sound quality, does anybody know?
In what, Windows orDOSBox? I'm not big on Windows internals, but I
thinkDOSBoxuses SDL, and later versions (1.3 ??) are multi-
threaded / multi-core or whatever for better performance, though
DOSBoxitself isn't. So maybe?? that's why? (Confusing.)
In the DOS VM, but onDOSBoxtoo and this has happened with other
programs too. Could it be that my audio drivers are multithreaded or
something? I'm genuinely curious. This hasn't happened to anyone else,
apparently.

Almost all old programs do not use multiple threads. Setting affinity
to a single thread (or using Windows compatibilities modes which does
this automagically) is a common technique to get games to work that
don't like multiple processors.

There are also launchers, which you could cobble together in a
shortcut, to launch something running on a single core.

http://smallvoid.com/article/winnt-p...-affinity.html

Paul