Re: dosbox update?

On Oct 4, 2018, at 10:26, Ken Cunningham wrote: > On 2018-10-04, at 8:19 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> Josh brought up some reasonable objections: >> >> https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2018-October/039443.html >> > > I was thinking about Josh's concerns. > > Seems to me t

Re: dosbox update?

I’m ready to help with DOSBox, since I’ve dealt with it a lot through the years and am using MacPorts for other things and at least know how to read a port file. BUT for the snapshots I’m not using MacPorts but instead build a minimalistic prefix for the snapshots I am doing (Exult, Pentagram, N

Re: dosbox update?

On 2018-10-04, at 8:19 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > Josh brought up some reasonable objections: > > https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2018-October/039443.html > I was thinking about Josh's concerns. Seems to me that if dosbox is an end-of-the-chain piece of software, that sup

Re: dosbox update?

Here's the very simple Portfile I used to do the 64bit build. Probably yours is similar. --- # -*- coding: utf-8; mode: tcl; tab-width: 4; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 4 -*- vim:fenc=utf-8:ft=tcl:et:sw=4:ts=4:sts=4 PortSystem 1.0 namedosbox version

Re: dosbox update?

On Oct 4, 2018, at 10:14, Ken Cunningham wrote: > 2. do an SDK trick with MacOS.10.13.sdk so it builds 32bit on Mojave (pretty > easy, but required manual intervention) This requires the MacOSX.sdk port and changes to base that I've mentioned before. https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/mac

Re: dosbox update?

Sounds like you're all over this. We can keep the 32bit builds on PPC and all Intel systems prior to Mojave. The patches and Portfile might need to be tweaked for the current release. For Mojave, we have two options: 1. force a 64bit build no matter what (easy) 2. do an SDK trick with MacOS.10

Re: dosbox update?

The developers of DOSBox know that it needs to improve but it’s not an easy task. And yes, you are right for most things the 64bit performance is more than enough and the more power the host machine has the less noticeable it is. Only the “latest” Dos games, most prominent the build engine games

Re: dosbox update?

One might hope that could get a little better in time. But I imagine it's still faster than the ancient systems it emulates, so aside from power usage e.g. on a laptop, presumably it's still usable for most purposes, if not ideal. > On Oct 4, 2018, at 03:36, Dominik Reichardt wrote: > > JFYI,

Re: dosbox update?

JFYI, while the 64bit DOSBox now builds and runs correctly, the performance penalty is still enormous. DOSBox built in 64bit is running at roughly 55% of a 32bit build. Dom > On 4. Oct 2018, at 02:39, Ken Cunningham > wrote: > > I have the update done and I'm using it now. > > Just working

Re: dosbox update?

I have the update done and I'm using it now. Just working out the final dets. Ken On 2018-10-03, at 4:23 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > On www.dosbox.com, I see > > Thursday, August 30th, 2018 - Qbix > DOSBox 0.74-2 has been released! > > A maintenance release for DOSBox 0.74, which solve

dosbox update?

On www.dosbox.com , I see Thursday, August 30th, 2018 - Qbix DOSBox 0.74-2 has been released! A maintenance release for DOSBox 0.74, which solves the following problems: Windows: Fix auto/max cycles algorithm on Windows 7, which helps with stuttering audio. Mac OS X: Brin