Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.msdos.programmer > #492 > unrolled thread

Re: Running an old DOS program

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.msdos.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Running an old DOS program 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> - 2012-03-08 10:24 -0500
    Re: Running an old DOS program Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2012-03-08 08:39 -0700
    Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-08 09:06 -0800
      Re: Running an old DOS program Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2012-03-08 10:32 -0700
      Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-08 17:44 -0600
      Re: Running an old DOS program Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> - 2012-03-09 13:36 +1100
        Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-09 08:07 -0800
          Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-09 11:32 -0600
          Re: Running an old DOS program Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> - 2012-03-14 09:10 +1100
          Re: Running an old DOS program Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 14:37 -0700
            Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-30 17:45 -0700
              Re: Running an old DOS program Ronald Phillips <ronald.phillips@gmail.com> - 2012-04-06 09:49 -0700
      Re: Running an old DOS program piper@nohoo.com - 2012-03-09 10:33 -0600
        Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-09 11:40 -0600
        Re: Running an old DOS program Zaphod Beeblebrox <Zaphod.Arisztid.Beeblebrox@gmail.com> - 2012-03-09 13:34 -0500
      Re: Running an old DOS program Jim Leonard <mobygamer@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 07:52 -0700
    Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-08 17:33 -0600
      Re: Running an old DOS program dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com> - 2012-03-10 01:23 +0000
        Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-09 21:02 -0600
          Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-10 04:41 -0800
            Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-10 17:44 -0600
              Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-11 03:00 -0700
                Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-11 06:14 -0500
                  Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-11 04:35 -0700
                    Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-11 08:46 -0500
                      Re: Running an old DOS program BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-03-11 09:35 -0500
                        Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-11 10:06 -0500
                      Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-11 17:57 -0700
                        Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-11 20:59 -0500
                          Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-11 19:33 -0700
                            Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-11 22:06 -0500
                              Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-11 20:34 -0700
                                Re: Running an old DOS program Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> - 2012-03-11 23:33 -0500
                                Re: Running an old DOS program Patok <crazy.div.patok@gmail.com> - 2012-03-12 01:09 -0400
                              Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-11 23:02 -0700
                                Re: Running an old DOS program 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> - 2012-03-12 19:59 -0400
                                  Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-12 20:44 -0700
                                  Re: Running an old DOS program "Hot-Text" <hot-text@mynews.ath.cx> - 2012-03-14 03:25 -0500
                              Re: Running an old DOS program Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-11 23:02 -0700
                        Re: Running an old DOS program Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 14:40 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#507

Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b08c87b8-2779-45ea-
a983-715122cc135c@j11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

> how do I edit the config.sys to set up sound since I can't
> access my fake DOS machine with my real machine?

That's down the emulator details. I don't know them. But I do know that DOS 
programs often used sound from the PC speaker, not at all the same as using 
some sound card. Either way the emulator will have to make whatever access is 
needed. If yours can't, you'll have to find one that can. Also, if running on 
W98, beeps sent to the PC speaker usually come out as single short clicks. An 
emulator may or may not be able to over-ride that. There are small 'beep' 
programs around that do at least prove that it can work. Sound cards ought to 
be easier, the emulator is a windows program, and should use one as any other 
windows program would. After that, the program it's supporting should work 
without knowing anything about it. If you can't use a config.sys setting 
exactly as normal, the emulator should be telling you what to use instead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509

On Mar 10, 11:44 pm, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b08c87b8-2779-45ea-
> a983-715122cc1...@j11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> > how do I edit the config.sys to set up sound since I can't
> > access my fake DOS machine with my real machine?
>
> That's down the emulator details. I don't know them. But I do know that DOS
> programs often used sound from the PC speaker, not at all the same as using
> some sound card. Either way the emulator will have to make whatever access is
> needed. If yours can't, you'll have to find one that can. Also, if running on
> W98, beeps sent to the PC speaker usually come out as single short clicks. An
> emulator may or may not be able to over-ride that. There are small 'beep'
> programs around that do at least prove that it can work. Sound cards ought to
> be easier, the emulator is a windows program, and should use one as any other
> windows program would. After that, the program it's supporting should work
> without knowing anything about it. If you can't use a config.sys setting
> exactly as normal, the emulator should be telling you what to use instead.

Which driver do I install? I've been told Soundblaster16 but I see
multiple versions all over the net. Do I have to find one according to
my mobo or something (I thought the damn VM was supposed to take care
of this)?

Also, whats a good mouse driver? I've tried a couple but they all
feature a cursor locked to a grid. Does one of them have smoother
navigation?

Btw, I'm on DOS 6.22 now. People recommended to ditch 7.10 because it
was unstable or something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510

Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in news:cfd2396a-3bfb-4b43-
9632-ed55a9f5a80c@w5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> Which driver do I install? I've been told Soundblaster16 but I see
> multiple versions all over the net. Do I have to find one according to
> my mobo or something (I thought the damn VM was supposed to take care
> of this)?
>

I don't know. If there are lots, you'll need to try one, and have a way to 
restore all of the original config, and try another till something works. 
Whatever you read, anywhere, you'll need to do this to be sure. The VM IS 
supposed to take care of it. Should provide the IRQ and everything. The main 
problem is that timing might be critical. Just as some games might depend on 
a hardware clock speed, and run badly in an emulator, so might timing 
functions for sound output. Only trying stuff will reveal the extent of 
hazard.

> Also, whats a good mouse driver? I've tried a couple but they all
> feature a cursor locked to a grid. Does one of them have smoother
> navigation?
>

DOS screens are text based, the pattern is usually 25, 43, or 50 lines, and 
40 or 80 characters. Even if you have a mouse cursor that appears to move 
smoothly, you can still only address the position of one character in a DOS 
text screen.

> Btw, I'm on DOS 6.22 now. People recommended to ditch 7.10 because it
> was unstable or something.
> 

DOS 6.22 is a good choice. DOS 7 isn't unstable, it just lacks some of the 
DOS 6 tools because it's made as a base for W9X. You might have version 
conflicts preventing some imported older DOS tools from running. You can use 
Setver.exe to correct this, but it's one of those things that I never got to 
work. I didn't try hard, it's always best to choose the system most likely to 
support your need without that extra complication. If your program was meant 
to run in true DOS, before Windows, then DOS v6.22 might not only be a good 
choice, but the best one. (I still keep it around even though I don't use it 
now. It's inbuilt help was particularly good, I used that after I'd quit 
using it for anything else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511

On Mar 11, 11:14 am, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:cfd2396a-3bfb-4b43-
> 9632-ed55a9f5a...@w5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Which driver do I install? I've been told Soundblaster16 but I see
> > multiple versions all over the net. Do I have to find one according to
> > my mobo or something (I thought the damn VM was supposed to take care
> > of this)?
>
> I don't know. If there are lots, you'll need to try one, and have a way to
> restore all of the original config, and try another till something works.
> Whatever you read, anywhere, you'll need to do this to be sure. The VM IS
> supposed to take care of it. Should provide the IRQ and everything. The main
> problem is that timing might be critical. Just as some games might depend on
> a hardware clock speed, and run badly in an emulator, so might timing
> functions for sound output. Only trying stuff will reveal the extent of
> hazard.

Okay, is there a repository anywhere? They are scattered all over the
place. DOSBox runs the emulator fine and I'd be using it right now
were it not dragging on like pissed-on Playstation. Is there a way to
figure out which Soundblaster driver DOSBox uses so I can use it in
DOS 6.22?

> > Also, whats a good mouse driver? I've tried a couple but they all
> > feature a cursor locked to a grid. Does one of them have smoother
> > navigation?
>
> DOS screens are text based, the pattern is usually 25, 43, or 50 lines, and
> 40 or 80 characters. Even if you have a mouse cursor that appears to move
> smoothly, you can still only address the position of one character in a DOS
> text screen.

I understand, and I don't care about the smoothness inside the DOS OS,
I care about the smoothness inside the emulator program.

> > Btw, I'm on DOS 6.22 now. People recommended to ditch 7.10 because it
> > was unstable or something.
>
> DOS 6.22 is a good choice. DOS 7 isn't unstable, it just lacks some of the
> DOS 6 tools because it's made as a base for W9X. You might have version
> conflicts preventing some imported older DOS tools from running. You can use

What version conflict? I installed 6.22 on a brand new VM.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#512

Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in news:f83d4df0-f5c8-494f-
87f2-882d358ecdc0@t15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> Okay, is there a repository anywhere? They are scattered all over the
> place. DOSBox runs the emulator fine and I'd be using it right now
> were it not dragging on like pissed-on Playstation. Is there a way to
> figure out which Soundblaster driver DOSBox uses so I can use it in
> DOS 6.22?
>

I don't know. Try something. Anything. The time to agonise is when there's 
nothing to try when you have to have something. I don't know enough to advise 
anything specific about soundblasters, except to disable the onboard synth 
and any features you don't need, as some of them use three IRQ's and you 
might as well cut all potential difficulties.

DOSbox ought to have a lot of info about sound output, it's extremely 
unlikely that this hasn't been asked of them many times, so see what they say 
about it.
 
> I understand, and I don't care about the smoothness inside the DOS OS,
> I care about the smoothness inside the emulator program.
>

I don't know what that means. If you're emulating DOS, there will be a text 
mode, with a grid like I described. There IS no smooth mouse positioning in 
that context. By definition, if you see smooth position changes, you're not 
in DOS, you're in a window made by the OS. The distinction might be hard to 
spot when using a DOS session in a windowed mode, but it's there. For 
example. open ANY command line window, use Alt+Space, then E then K to 
activate selection, and you can drag the selection by holdign down the left 
mouse button. The pointer will move smoothly, but the test selection box will 
not. If you're seeing sluggish motion, delays, that's something else, 
something impeding system (window) messages. 

> What version conflict? I installed 6.22 on a brand new VM.
> 

Between versions of DOS. For example, there's a TREE command in DOS 6. Isn't 
in DOS 7, for W9X foundation. But you can't use it even if you add it, it 
will give a 'wrong DOS version' error. DOS v6.22 has a large set of native 
commands, so if that one supports your program and runs in that emulator, use 
it. Never mind not having obvious needs for specific tools, it's a full DOS 
install, v7.1 wasn't intended to be one, and isn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#513

On 3/11/2012 8:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
> Between versions of DOS. For example, there's a TREE command in DOS 6. Isn't
> in DOS 7, for W9X foundation. But you can't use it even if you add it, it
> will give a 'wrong DOS version' error. DOS v6.22 has a large set of native
> commands, so if that one supports your program and runs in that emulator, use
> it. Never mind not having obvious needs for specific tools, it's a full DOS
> install, v7.1 wasn't intended to be one, and isn't.

One of the cool things I liked with Windows (v3.xx to Windows 7) is that 
you can replace the desktop (shell) with something else. Like for 
example under Windows 3.xx and Windows 9x, you can replace 
shell=explorer.exe to command.com (I forget if it is in System.ini or 
Win.ini).

And when you boot, you get a multitasking DOS. The full blown Windows is 
still there if you ever need it. Say for example if you want to run 
notepad, just type it through the command prompt. But what is also nice 
about this multitasking DOS is that it also sports the better memory 
management of Windows (VM).

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo 2GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#514

BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in news:jjid63$rql$1@dont-email.me:

> One of the cool things I liked with Windows (v3.xx to Windows 7) is that 
> you can replace the desktop (shell) with something else. Like for 
> example under Windows 3.xx and Windows 9x, you can replace 
> shell=explorer.exe to command.com (I forget if it is in System.ini or 
> Win.ini).
> 
> And when you boot, you get a multitasking DOS. The full blown Windows is 
> still there if you ever need it. Say for example if you want to run 
> notepad, just type it through the command prompt. But what is also nice 
> about this multitasking DOS is that it also sports the better memory 
> management of Windows (VM).
> 

That could be neat, if we can set screen resolution high when calling windows 
programs in it. I know that a Windows program will run when Explorer is shut 
down, but never made the jump to realising that it could be launched from a 
command window even if Explorer is shut down. (The Run command field works, 
but that's still basically Explorer...) All still 32 bit protected mode 
though, so no real mode DOS emulation, I guess, DOSbox would still be needed. 
(But might possibly run better, if the Explorer shell isn't there to risk any 
kind of conflict of interest with it).

System.ini is the one with that shell launch line.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#515

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?

On Mar 11, 1:46 pm, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:f83d4df0-f5c8-494f-
> 87f2-882d358ec...@t15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I understand, and I don't care about the smoothness inside the DOS OS,
> > I care about the smoothness inside the emulator program.
>
> I don't know what that means. If you're emulating DOS, there will be a text
> mode, with a grid like I described. There IS no smooth mouse positioning in
> that context. By definition, if you see smooth position changes, you're not
> in DOS, you're in a window made by the OS. The distinction might be hard to
> spot when using a DOS session in a windowed mode, but it's there. For
> example. open ANY command line window, use Alt+Space, then E then K to
> activate selection, and you can drag the selection by holdign down the left
> mouse button. The pointer will move smoothly, but the test selection box will
> not. If you're seeing sluggish motion, delays, that's something else,
> something impeding system (window) messages.

http://www.zshare.net/video/9937683548863d42/
http://www.zshare.net/video/993768395f76905d/

First one is how it is right now (notice how I can't hit the "Full
screen" checkbox and a few others) second one is what it should look
like. I tried doing that alt+space thing and the cursor went out of
whack, clicking made it advance upwards one pace which was still about
30 pixels.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#516

Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in news:fa614f61-2d34-4a07-
ac7d-b0e30f0b4971@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> http://www.zshare.net/video/9937683548863d42/
> http://www.zshare.net/video/993768395f76905d/
> 
> First one is how it is right now (notice how I can't hit the "Full
> screen" checkbox and a few others) second one is what it should look
> like. I tried doing that alt+space thing and the cursor went out of
> whack, clicking made it advance upwards one pace which was still about
> 30 pixels.
> 

I can't see them. Just an ad then a popup then a file-not-found error.

About the difference between standard command windows and what you're seeing, 
it may not matter. You're emulating real mode DOS, the umulator likely has 
its own tools to do what Windows would do in its own command windows.

About core affinity, I have no idea, but sound breaking up usually means that 
a buffer empties before it can be filled enough, so anything that corrects 
that is alomost certainly a right move whether we understand it or not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517

On Mar 12, 1:59 am, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:fa614f61-2d34-4a07-
> ac7d-b0e30f0b4...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >http://www.zshare.net/video/9937683548863d42/
> >http://www.zshare.net/video/993768395f76905d/
>
> > First one is how it is right now (notice how I can't hit the "Full
> > screen" checkbox and a few others) second one is what it should look
> > like. I tried doing that alt+space thing and the cursor went out of
> > whack, clicking made it advance upwards one pace which was still about
> > 30 pixels.
>
> I can't see them. Just an ad then a popup then a file-not-found error.

Ugh, zshare sucks.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#518

Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in news:75664770-1038-4f6b-
9b8a-057f3fd77f4b@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:

> 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. (But 
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 those, 
or even identify the streams im MPC.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#519

On Mar 12, 3:06 am, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:75664770-1038-4f6b-
> 9b8a-057f3fd77...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
>
> > 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. (But
> 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 those,
> 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

^ Shitty XviD format.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#520

Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in news:c9de8984-3985-4060-
979d-df52255a626e@l7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 12, 3:06 am, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:75664770-1038-4
> f6b-
>> 9b8a-057f3fd77...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > 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
> 
> ^ Shitty 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522

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 shit 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 fuck up the once-vibrant colors. XviD
is for movies, not for computer screencaps.

2. x264 is state-of-the-art and kicks the shit 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 shit"! Well, that's your field. You are the classic OS
genius, figure out how to get the latest shit 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524

Industrial One wrote:
 
> 4. All I hear is "we're using win98, it doesn't support all the
> latest codecs n shit"! Well, that's your field. You are the
> classic OS genius, figure out how to get the latest shit 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 shit
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).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#525

On Mar 12, 11:59 pm, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:
> Industrial One wrote:
> > 4. All I hear is "we're using win98, it doesn't support all the
> > latest codecs n shit"! Well, that's your field. You are the
> > classic OS genius, figure out how to get the latest shit 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 shit

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527

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..


:/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#523

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 shit 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 fuck up the once-vibrant colors. XviD
is for movies, not for computer screencaps.

2. x264 is state-of-the-art and kicks the shit 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 shit"! Well, that's your field. You are the classic OS
genius, figure out how to get the latest shit 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#537

Hi,

On Mar 11, 7:57 pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> 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.)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.msdos.programmer

csiph-web