Errius wrote on 2024-12-20, 19:08:

Yeah, I create a text file for each game to remind me of all its peculiarities. I have hundreds of such files now.

Do you mind sharing those files? It would no doubt help a LOT of people and make DOS live thanks to your efforts. And the more people who use DOS, the better.

Is this on current or retro PC?

Retro is pretty straight forward.
Install your games on a different partition to the OS.
If you need to reinstall the OS, most windows and all dos games will run just fine by running the exe, no need to reinstall.

I have 2 folders DosGames and WinGames, that way I can can simply copy the dos games from my earliest (486) to latest (P4) only the sound card settings need updating in certain games.
You can probably do it for WinGames, but I feel more comfortable at least doing the initial install on the same hardware.

Some games your better off backing up an installed copy, e.g. Dark Reign Will not install unless a specific version of Direct X 3a is installed.
But if you just copy across a preinstalled copy from somewhere, it'll run just fine on whatever version of Direct X is installed.

But typically I backup all my games to an archive file including the iso, latest patch, no-cd and text file with install notes. Just in case I ever need to install clean.

zyzzle wrote on 2024-12-22, 13:02:

Errius wrote on 2024-12-20, 19:08:

Yeah, I create a text file for each game to remind me of all its peculiarities. I have hundreds of such files now.

Do you mind sharing those files? It would no doubt help a LOT of people and make DOS live thanks to your efforts. And the more people who use DOS, the better.

My files are personalised to my collection of games and hardware (contains install keys, etc) so it wouldn't be wise to share them, unless I first edited out a lot of stuff.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-20, 19:08:

Jsx97, there used to be graphical environments and file managers. Norton Commander, MS-DOS Shell, ViewMax, GEM, XTree Gold, PC-T […]
Show full quote

jsx97 wrote on 2024-12-20, 18:46:

I really like DOS and Win95/98 games, but as it turns out, running them is not that easy. [..]

Jsx97, there used to be graphical environments and file managers.
Norton Commander, MS-DOS Shell, ViewMax, GEM, XTree Gold, PC-Tools Desktop etc.

Back in the day, most of us PC users didn't live in the stone age.
We didn't have to use command line and DOS commands all the time, even though modern media makes it look like that.

Personally, I have added Norton Commander to [autoexec] section of DOSBOX, even.
So I can use DOS commands whenever I feel like it, but it's not a must.

Best wishes,
Jo22

PS: There are many free Norton Commander clones and graphical shells for DOS.
Volkov Commander is popular, C64 fans used to use Star Commander.

I have always used dos commands because it wasn't difficult to use.
The most difficult in dos games was to manage convetionnal memory.

MrFlibble wrote on 2024-12-22, 12:25:

Here's a little trick for you: you can change most of the relevant DOSBox parameters like CPU cycles count or CPU type/core at runtime using the CONFIG command. You can thus write a BAT file and put it into the root folder and have it run your game with the modified parameters, then go back to the root and reset your config to default when you exit.

You could also just have separate DOSBOX conf files placed in each game directory. Then a batch or Windows shortcuts that runs runs the main DOSBox executable, and launches each game directly.

willow wrote on 2024-12-31, 14:56:

I have always used dos commands because it wasn't difficult to use.

😃👍

willow wrote on 2024-12-31, 14:56:

The most difficult in dos games was to manage convetionnal memory.

I second that, it needs some time to get used to it, as well.

Way back in the 90s, I remember, I had a 286 and couldn’t use memory managers such as EMM386 with MemMaker (except for himem.sys).
So I had to tinker with smaller drivers and had to leave out some (smartdrive, ansi.sys, keyboard.sys. ega.sys etc).

Gratefully, though, the MS-DOS 6.2 I had did already support DOS=HIGH, UMB so I could use DOS=HIGH to load parts of DOS past 1 MB, at the very least.

This was quite an improvement from MS-DOS 4 and earlier.
I think we owe Digital Research and DR DOS 5 for introducing this feature, it's really useful.

If I was being period correct here and had used an 286 era DOS, then it wouldn't have been that simple.
But it were the crazy 90s, so I was really lucky that my 286 had run with the latest DOS of the time.
Not all 286 PCs had this luck (some ran DOS 5 torwards their end, though, which already had same HMA/UMB memory features as 6.2).

That being said, we're lucky that we nowadays have RAM cards such as that 1 MB card or that microRAM card by Lo-tech and partners (not meant as an ad).
Together with USE!UMBS 2.2 and DOSMAX we can make that HiRAM usable to DOS.

Such UMB cards did exist in the 80s already, but were not overly well known.
Back then, ca. 1987, QRAM and MOREMEM and LOADHIGH could be used with cards such as the HiCard.

Some 286 chipsets from late 80s also could use the 64KB EMS page frame as an simple UMB.
They froze the chipset MMU logic so to say and left the four RAM pages of 16KB being static. Like a carrousel that doesn't move.

They were cheap alternatives to using full-size Expanded Memory boards like the Intel Above Board, GA-280, AST RAMpage or QuadRAM.
These cards had the ability to back-fill a large part of the motherboard RAM,
which effectively turned them into memory managment units (MMUs) that controlled conventional memory.
So it was possible to cycle through multiple sets of conventional memory, along with the DOS programs that live there.
That's a feature what DESQView essentially had managed. It was an early hypervisor by todays terminology.

Then there's UMBPCI driver from the 90s, for 486/586 mainboard owners.
It can be used in VMs, too, which is very nice.
Things run fine, I think, as long as no DMA is used in these regions.

Then, there are a couple of "neat" features (pun intended) for 386 users.
Programs such as QEMM, 386MAX or Helix Netroom did offer their magic.

Last but not least, DOSes like IBM DOS or Novell DOS/DR DOS had offered similar features to MS-DOS' MemMaker.

Professionals had the option to use multitasking DOSes straight away.
Real/32, PC-MOS/386, Concurrent DOS, Wendin DOS, DOS Plus 1.2 (can run 4 CP/M-86 programs or one DOS program).

What's a bit funny though, is that the arch rival Amiga had used different RAM types, too! 😁
Where PC had conventional memory, upper memory, high memory and EMS/XMS the Amiga had Slow RAM, Chip RAM and Fast RAM.
To the beginner, neither of them was exactly easy to understand. 😉