Author Topic: DOS Games on Windows 9X OS. (Read 18715 times)

Cityscape · « **on:** July 05, 2009, 10:09:51 PM »

Which OS would work best for my old DOS games:
1. Windows 3.1
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows 98SE

I want to know which is best to install for Dos games???

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #1 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:16:09 PM »

windows 3.1, since it is just a program that runs under DOS.

Program Manager, File-Exit, yes to "This will end your windows session"... and then run the game form the prompt.

Cityscape · « **Reply #2 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:26:33 PM »

That's exactly what i thought, So i just went ahead and installed "Windows for Workgroups 3.11*" on a virtual PC.

*For those that may not know, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is basically the same as Windows 3.1.

Cityscape · « **Reply #3 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:27:37 PM »

Although i did hear that 95 could run any DOS game as well.

quaxo · « **Reply #4 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:30:21 PM »

It also depends on the hardware for you computer. Will your sound and video card work properly in DOS?

Adding to what BC said, the best OS for DOS games would, of course, be DOS. You wouldn't even need Windows 3.1, unless you're talking about a Windows 3.1 game.

If you're currently running something like 98 or XP though, DOSBox is a good alternative for DOS games. It emulates the necessary hardware for older DOS games when your current hardware is too new.
http://www.dosbox.com

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #5 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:36:31 PM »

for 9x, as well, you could reboot into MS-DOS mode.

quaxo · « **Reply #6 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:40:36 PM »

Quote from: BC_Programmer on July 05, 2009, 10:36:31 PM

for 9x, as well, you could reboot into MS-DOS mode.

There are a number of DOS games that won't run properly (or at all) in DOS mode. It needs a sound card that works in DOS still.

Cityscape, what's your current hardware in this machine?

Cityscape · « **Reply #7 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:28:33 PM »

Quote from: quaxo on July 05, 2009, 10:30:21 PM

Will your sound and video card work properly in DOS?

Quote from: quaxo on July 05, 2009, 10:40:36 PM

Cityscape, what's your current hardware in this machine?

I've attached my computers profile. This is what it was on a Windows 2000 virtual machine, but MS Virtual PC 2004 should use the same sound/video card for Win 3.1

quaxo · « **Reply #8 on:** July 06, 2009, 02:43:59 AM »

The hardware in that report is what is simulated by Virtual PC, but what is your actual hardware and OS that you're running? In other words, what is the host system information, not the guest system.

I'm also sending you a message regarding something else. Do check your inbox ASAP.

Cityscape · « **Reply #9 on:** July 06, 2009, 11:11:58 AM »

The host right now has:
- a ATI RADEON Xpress 200 512MB integrated GPU
- Realtek ALC880 onboard HD audio

And thanks for that nice messsage quaxo.

Rob Pomeroy · « **Reply #10 on:** July 07, 2009, 12:54:36 PM »

Quote from: Cityscape on July 06, 2009, 11:11:58 AM

UBUNTU IS THE OS OF THE FUTURE. GET READY FOR IT.

Off-topic, but... Ubuntu is not an operating system. GNU/Linux is...

Cityscape · « **Reply #11 on:** July 07, 2009, 01:16:42 PM »

You obviously don't know much about Linux.

Quote from: Rob Pomeroy on July 07, 2009, 12:54:36 PM

Ubuntu is not an operating system. GNU/Linux is...

That is like saying Windows Vista is not an operating system. Windows is...

If Vista is an OS then Ubuntu is. There are huge differences between Linux distro's, just as there are huge differences between Windows 95 & Windows 7.

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #12 on:** July 07, 2009, 01:43:50 PM »

Quote from: Cityscape on July 07, 2009, 01:16:42 PM

You obviously don't know much about Linux.That is like saying Windows Vista is not an operating system. Windows is...

If Vista is an OS then Ubuntu is. There are huge differences between Linux distro's, just as there are huge differences between Windows 95 & Windows 7.

Rob probably knows a lot more about linux then either of us...

And actually, it's the same as saying that Windows 3.1 isn't an operating system- DOS is, which is correct.

Ubuntu is just a branded set of kernel, desktop manager,resources, and user-mode applications, with, of course, a large number of changes. It is still Linux, however.

Additionally I might add that it is presumptious to assume that Ubuntu will be used by anything other then a small niche for the foreseeable future; It's a great OS but it doesn't have the ease-of installation and ease of use inherent in windows. Take for example the fact that not a single one of the distro's I have tried successfully install to any of my PC's Hard disks. Gpart crashes every time. XP/Vista, however, have no trouble whatsoever.

But hey, it's free, And it's a work in progress. It will always get better.

pragma · « **Reply #13 on:** July 07, 2009, 02:09:44 PM »

Actually the question of what constitutes an OS is the source of some controversy in certain GNU/Linux circles. If you ask Richard Stallman he would agree with Rob Pomeroy and then go into a long rant about why GNU should be first and how important it is to pronounce the "/".

But if you take a look at the homepage for Ubuntu they say this: "Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system".
And to me that makes a lot more sense. You're never going to be able to explain to ordinary users why Ubuntu isn't an OS and why they should pronounce the "/" in GNU/Linux. For a user, Ubuntu is the operating system.

Cityscape · « **Reply #14 on:** July 07, 2009, 03:42:54 PM »

Quote from: BC_Programmer on July 07, 2009, 01:43:50 PM

Additionally I might add that it is presumptious to assume that Ubuntu will be used by anything other then a small niche for the foreseeable future; It's a great OS but it doesn't have the ease-of installation and ease of use inherent in windows. Take for example the fact that not a single one of the distro's I have tried successfully install to any of my PC's Hard disks. Gpart crashes every time. XP/Vista, however, have no trouble whatsoever.

But hey, it's free, And it's a work in progress. It will always get better.

I installed it without a problem...I used version 9.04
What version did you?

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #15 on:** July 07, 2009, 03:55:19 PM »

9.04 and 9.10

I think, it was an issue with my HD size, 500GB;

or at least I thought it was, turned out, vectorlinux had the same issue, with my old PC and a 32GB drive. (well, 80GB with the cylinder reduction jumper set). So Far I've only been able to run Ubuntu via the CD, where it works fine. I also now have a USB flash drive with Linux mint that works beautifully.

When I tried to install it from within windows, it "seemed" to work, installing to my D: drive- but trying to select that option in the boot loader resulting in an error (I forget the exact error, I think it was something that basically said that the boot data was out of the boot loader's range, or something).

I'm thinking of trying one of my old HDs, but they are miniscule in comparison (2GB).

IN the meantime however I have my USB stick that can boot mint on my laptop, so at least I have something to fiddle with. Might get more flash drives for the express purpose of installing different distro's on them.

Cityscape · « **Reply #16 on:** July 07, 2009, 04:05:30 PM »

On the CD linux runs slow, do you know if it would be faster running from flash drive?

Also i can't seem to get Ubuntu to run in MS Virtual PC, for some reason it always freezes.

I might try virtual box...

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #17 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:04:31 PM »

Well, It's faster from the Flash Drive, then from the CD, Can't say wether it's faster then it would be from an HD, I don't think it is, though.

Don't think Virtual PC is a good environment for Linux. I used to use a Emulator called "Bochs" which seemed to work alright. It's not easy to setup, though.

Cityscape · « **Reply #18 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:09:37 PM »

I'm going to install VirtualBox again today, it officially supports Linux as a guest unlike Virtual PC.

Rob Pomeroy · « **Reply #19 on:** July 08, 2009, 02:13:50 AM »

Sorry chaps - I didn't mean to drag this off-topic. I would be happy to debate "Ubuntu is/is not an operating system" in another, more appropriate forum.

As for me obviously not knowing much about Linux, well come on now, check your facts before making wild, disparaging claims.

That comment did make me laugh though.

Cityscape · « **Reply #20 on:** July 08, 2009, 12:31:19 PM »

Quote from: Rob Pomeroy on July 08, 2009, 02:13:50 AM

Sorry chaps - I didn't mean to drag this off-topic. I would be happy to debate "Ubuntu is/is not an operating system" in another, more appropriate forum.

That's okay, i may debate you sometime in another forum.

Quote from: Rob Pomeroy on July 08, 2009, 02:13:50 AM

As for me obviously not knowing much about Linux, well come on now, check your facts before making wild, disparaging claims. That comment did make me laugh though.

I don't have any facts to check...but I can now see how some can consider Ubuntu a non-OS.
"wild, disparaging claims" Sorry bout that Rob, but for all i know, you don't anything about Linux.

Rob Pomeroy · « **Reply #21 on:** July 09, 2009, 01:06:45 AM »

Quote from: Cityscape on July 08, 2009, 12:31:19 PM

I don't have any facts to check...

See here: http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php?board=10.0

Linux sysadmin for the last 10+ years... CompSci degree heavily featuring Unix... Now administering nearly 300 Linux and Unix servers in development and production environments... So a little experience with Linux, yes.

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #22 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:57:20 AM »

haha! So I was right when I said:

Quote

Rob probably knows a lot more about linux then either of us...

Cityscape · « **Reply #23 on:** July 09, 2009, 10:23:13 AM »

Quote from: BC_Programmer on July 09, 2009, 09:57:20 AM

haha! So I was right...

Okay, i'll give that to you then.

Sorry Rob, I see now that you do now much about Linux.
I may be seeking your help in the future then...

Rob Pomeroy · « **Reply #24 on:** July 09, 2009, 11:31:47 AM »

Quote from: Cityscape on July 09, 2009, 10:23:13 AM

I may be seeking your help in the future then...

Any time.

Cityscape · « **Reply #25 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:01:33 PM »

Quote from: BC_Programmer on July 05, 2009, 10:16:09 PM

windows 3.1, since it is just a program that runs under DOS.

Program Manager, File-Exit, yes to "This will end your windows session"... and then run the game form the prompt.

Good then.
I've got my Windows 3.11 with internet and everything setup.
I'm also about to install 98SE for my "95/98 Only" games.

Cricket_Lover · « **Reply #26 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:13:40 PM »

Yeah, 98SE is pretty good. I personally have Win98SE, but for my DOS games, I use DOSBOX. Most of my DOS programs have timing issues when run in DOS mode, or even in DOS 6 (I installed it in a different HDD, which I swapped with my current drive.

smeezekitty · « **Reply #27 on:** August 25, 2009, 02:26:03 PM »

they will all work perfectly
you can just launch the game from windows and it will run full screen
and about ubuntu it installs fine but i dont like it i use DSL (*censored* small linux) when i have to
i prefer windows

patio · « **Reply #28 on:** August 25, 2009, 03:04:28 PM »

Nice Bump...

smeezekitty · « **Reply #29 on:** August 25, 2009, 03:10:25 PM »

oops i didnt know it was from july

Cricket_Lover · « **Reply #30 on:** August 25, 2009, 03:46:16 PM »

Quote from: smeezekitty on August 25, 2009, 03:10:25 PM

oops i didnt know it was from july

Sorry, it was my fault. I generally will only 'bump' from the front page or further back, depending on activity.

Computer Hope Forum

News:

Author Topic: DOS Games on Windows 9X OS. (Read 18715 times)

Cityscape

BC_Programmer

Cityscape

Cityscape

quaxo

BC_Programmer

quaxo

Cityscape

quaxo

Cityscape

Rob Pomeroy

Cityscape

BC_Programmer

pragma

Cityscape

BC_Programmer

Cityscape

BC_Programmer

Cityscape

Rob Pomeroy

Cityscape

Rob Pomeroy

BC_Programmer

Cityscape

Rob Pomeroy

Cityscape

Cricket_Lover

smeezekitty

patio

smeezekitty

Cricket_Lover