PocketDOS vs Dosbox, what do you think?

[rinulh]

[x999xOutSider]

[Ulf]

PocketDos:

For:
Faster in VGA, if processor <286.
Options.
Very good mouse behaviour
Right click !!!!
Resize for VGA screen

Against:
- Not free and expensive.
- Very Slow for >186
- Strange compatibilliy

Games working and playable for me:
In pocketdos: Eye of the Beholder 2 (perfect), Ultima 6, dune2.
In Dosbox: UFO, Warcraft,

Lands of lore and Jagged alliance looks nice in Dosbox but without the right click, it is not playable.
Ultima 7 works....but so SLOW !!!

Do we have some news of the Dosbox project ?
(If someone can show me how to compile this sources, maybe we can find a way to have the right click)

I try the windows version of the Dosbox. it is very slow in fact (P4 2.4 Ghz), so this first version for the pocket Pc is not bad at all !

Ulf

[Guest]

DosBox is basically worthless for me. Sure it runs more games, but too slow to be used anyway.
So thumbs up for PocketDOS.

[Ulf]

Please say which game you play with this.
Some people just want to have Warcraft, some other want more DukeNukem 3D. It's important to understand why you prefer Dosbox or PocketDos.

Me for example: I want Jagged Alliance UFO and Lands of Lore.
Turn base game, so speed is not the main point, but mouse control.

[rinulh]

Well it's works ok on my A716, and most of the Sierra games can be configured to improve the speed, and as they have an upper menu for all the icons so I don't need the right mouse button, I prefer Dosbox in this case.

The only game that works much better than in Dosbox is Eye of the Beholder that I forgot to mention, since PocketDOS allows right mouse button emulation which is needed for this game.

[PocketDOS]

It's probably fair to say that DOSBox will always provide better game compatibility. That's it's primary purpose, and it has a lot of developers working on it with the sole aim of getting more games to work with it.

The primary purpose of PocketDOS was to provide DOS application compatibility, and to that end it's probably safe to say that it will always provide better application compatibility than DOSBox. That's it's primary purpose.

However, it appears that both of these program's purposes are changing. DOSBox is having to provide a lot more application compatibility (although it's main developers refuse to consider any changes that are not related to improving game compatibility). PocketDOS is now having to provide a lot more game compatibility. It's still early days for gaming on PocketDOS, and it will certainly improve in both compatibility and performance...

There are threads on the PocketDOS support forum for reporting games that work/don't work. Listing the games that don't work (and if possible a brief description of why), will ensure that they work in a future release...

Apologies to those who find PocketDOS too expensive, and Thank you to those who register it. I am the (only) developer behind PocketDOS, and it's how I make my living...

[PocketDOS]

Warcraft 1 (demo) seems to run fine under PocketDOS (with a CPU plug-in). At the "blizzard logo" screen press the <Space> key and wait a few seconds... This had been tested, so it was a bit of a surprise to hear people were having problems with it...

There's some funky stuff going on with the ARM version of the DOSBox plug-in... Warcraft runs on the x86 and SH3 versions of the DOSBox plug-in but not on the ARM version. It does work with the ARM version of the Bochs plug-in...

[Ulf]

Ok, I apologize. It's not expensive for the work behind it.
And as many people will use it professionnaly, it's normal that you get money for what you've done. But for my personnal use it's different....

Warcraft works well for me under the Bosch plugin. (Slow but ok)

[rinulh]

[Ulf]

[sponge]

[(TSC)Bender]

[PocketDOS]

[PocketDOS]