la0s on 12/9/2005 at 14:30
Quote Posted by ToxicFrog
In specific, you want to 'remember my settings' on the
@La0s: it worked! Thanks (on behalf of Vorn) who has spent much of this evening SQUEEEing over the engine.
I'm happy I could be of any help. I hope your friend Vorn finds something out. :)
descenterace on 12/9/2005 at 17:51
Quote Posted by ToxicFrog
...which is what I'm convinced the designers of the 8086 did. :weird:
Yeah, the 8086 does suck.
The 386 Protected Mode architecture is sheer genius, though. A shame most OSes don't make proper use of it.
ToxicFrog on 12/9/2005 at 20:19
I am firmly of the belief that all X86-based architectures are the creation of Nameless Horrors from beyond the reality we know.
MC680x0 for the win.
Enchantermon on 12/9/2005 at 22:57
Okay.....I just reinstalled VDMSound version 2.0.4 and still don't have an option with a musical note when I right-click on CDSHOCK.bat.....so what am I supposed to do? How do I create a shortcut?
Enchantermon
TheNightTerror on 12/9/2005 at 23:29
That's . . . odd. :erm: Where did you get the install files from? I installed VDMS sound from the .zip file averroes made with all the SS1 fixing programs in it, and it worked just fine. If you don't have it and can't find it, I can e-mail it to you. :)
ToxicFrog on 13/9/2005 at 00:04
The latest version of VDMS is 2.1.0, where they made several major changes to the interface, including the integration of the VDMS launchpad into the VDMS core, which is what allows the creation of VDMS shortcuts.
The (
http://ntvdm.cjb.net/) official page appears to be down at the moment, but the VDMS 2.1.0 installer is mirrored at VOGONS (
http://vogons.zetafleet.com/ndldownload.php?filename=VDMSound2.1.0.exe) here. Uninstalling previous versions first isn't explicitly required (I think?) but might be wise.
In particular, 2.0.x (and 1.x) lack this feature unless you install the VDMS Launchpad, a seperate program.
descenterace on 13/9/2005 at 06:29
Y'know that DEP feature Athlon64s have now? It was marketed as a Really New Idea. The exact same feature has existed in ALL x86 CPUs after the 386, but at a segment level.
If Windows made full use of the segmented architecture (which is seen as a waste of time or an absolutely incredible work of genius depending on your experience of Assembly code) it'd be faster and more reliable. And it wouldn't need DEP because it'd already HAVE protected code and data segments.
And every application would have its own 4GB memory space, starting at 0x00000000, regardless of where it really was in memory. As it is, there's only 2GB of application-usable space even on WinXP, since the top 2GB is reserved for the OS.
One thing that makes x86 a better OS development platform than the Mac is the existence of 4 privilege levels, instead of only 2 (System and User). This means that kernel access can be better controlled by the hardware instead of granting 100% access to anything that needs even the smallest amount of kernel-level access.
The reason why Windows doesn't make use of segments is that the kernel must be easily portable to other (non-segmented) architectures such as the Itanium. This actually excludes a lot of the x86's unique features, making it 'just another architecture'.
That's why multitasking slows it down so much. Windows and Linux don't make full use of the hardware's own task-switching support and instead do a whole load of the housework in software, which takes over 200 times as many clock cycles on every task switch.
Enchantermon on 14/9/2005 at 00:39
*sigh* Well, I got the newer version of VDMS installed, made a shortcut, and ticked "enable basic VESA support." I then tried to run SS1 with that, combined with MOUSE2KV and NOLFB, but it still won't work. I'm starting to wonder if the graphics card is the problem..... BTW, the driver version of NVIDIA GeForce 4 MX 440 that I am using is 5.2.1.6. I'd update, but then another one of my games will probably stop running. :erg:
Enchantermon
TheNightTerror on 14/9/2005 at 02:26
You were able to borrow a ATI video card a little while ago, right? Maybe you could try popping that card back into your computer sometime to see how it copes. I have no idea when I'm going to get my laptop back, but I'll have to see how this runs on it once it's home again. It might only be a problem with this exact card, who knows? :confused:
IceNine on 14/9/2005 at 05:59
Runs like a top here. Chops below 15FPS in 1024 though, but it's all software so I kind of expected that.
Win98 and an ATI 9200.
Awesome job, kudos!
