Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Wine 1.3.12 Brings Initial DOSBox Integration

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,088

    Default Wine 1.3.12 Brings Initial DOSBox Integration

    Phoronix: Wine 1.3.12 Brings Initial DOSBox Integration

    Wine 1.3.11 wasn't too interesting as the inaugural Wine development release of 2011, but Wine 1.3.12 has been released today and it carries a bit more weight, such as an initial stab at integrating DOSBox...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTAzMw

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Perth, Scotland
    Posts
    439

    Default

    Can someone explain this DOSBox integration in a little more detail? When would DOS not be supported natively? When running on a non-x86/x64 arch? But don't you run Wine through QEMU in this case?

  3. #3

    Default

    Like Windows the file format used on DOS was a .exe (and the same for .NET). This just allows Wine to offload the handling of DOS executables to DOSBox if we encounter a DOS application. We have DOS code in Wine, but it doesn't work so well and especially on 64-bit not all 16-bit DOS applications can work because of the need for VM86.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    Not sure why this is useful. If I wanted to run a DOS program in DOSBox, I would not run it in Wine in the first place, I would run it in DOSBox

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Perth, Scotland
    Posts
    439

    Default

    Okay, I thought it might be that but the original explanation sounded different. The funny thing is that running a DOS application in Windows itself rarely works.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,375

    Default

    i really wish the wine developers would focus more on directx than on things that can already be accomplished in other software. dosbox does not need to be implemented into wine. i haven't really used wine in about 2 years but from what i noticed, it barely got any better since the last time i used it.

    to me, games are 90% of why anyone would use wine in the first place - linux has a lot of pretty good alternatives to commercial applications but theres nothing you can do about games. the rest of the 10% would be stuff like the adobe products, MS office, itunes, etc (i don't own any of those so its not a biased thing). anyways, that being said, i have a very strong feeling that wine's fake directx is the reason why most gold or less rated games aren't working perfectly. if they can get the official directx (9, 10, and 11) to install flawlessly in wine then i would suspect the average game to have its rating improved (so from garbage to bronze, bronze to silver, silver to gold, gold to platinum).
    imo, performance should come last. i would much rather be able to play a game or run a program without any wine-related glitches and sacrifice a little speed.


    considering that all modern CPUs contain virtualization instruction sets, i feel like if virtualbox can get to installing a real directx before wine, it would be a much better choice for all purposes. sure its a bit more memory consuming but just dumb down the windows setup - if linux is the host, windows doesn't need half of the things it normally offers.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brasil
    Posts
    43

    Default

    They already focus on Direct 3D. You can play some very demanding games with wine, that would not even start 4 years ago. Of course, you need the right hardware and the nvidia binary, but that's not entirely wine fault.

    And hey, DOS also had some very good games! Wine could really shine as a windows legacy suppression layer in the coming years.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    i really wish the wine developers would focus more on directx than on things that can already be accomplished in other software. dosbox does not need to be implemented into wine. i haven't really used wine in about 2 years but from what i noticed, it barely got any better since the last time i used it.
    I agree with you. Dosbox isn't anything useful for me in Wine and nobody is eagerly waiting to see it in Wine.

    I also noticed that the fact that Wine is getting better very slow is that skilled developers continuously prefer to do easy tasks like
    Convert XYZ to ZYX
    or
    Pass 'something that is called XYZ' as 'the same but called ZYX'

    In my opinion both above tasks + dosbox is waste of human resources -> time -> money
    Last edited by NSLW; 01-22-2011 at 02:12 PM. Reason: lack of word

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Not sure why this is useful. If I wanted to run a DOS program in DOSBox, I would not run it in Wine in the first place, I would run it in DOSBox
    Yeah but now you only need Wine for both. I think it's a great move.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unimatrix View Post
    Yeah but now you only need Wine for both. I think it's a great move.
    How is this a great move? They're two different programs, configured in separate places, working in a different way.

    Maybe we should integrate Amarok into MPlayer. It's a great move since you then only need MPlayer for both...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •