rec.autos.simulators

People like you said in the past that Solitaire is about the best you
can do in Win95 ***, that fast action games will never be playable
on Win95 "because it eats so much resources". And this wasn't five
years ago with 386 machines, but later back when I already had my
P133/24MB system.

Well DUH! Only shows that these older input devices are quite pathetic
with their restrictions, big latency etc. But Win95 uses that same SB16
joystick port I already have much more efficiently than MS-DOS games,
if the input devices let it to.

But it still does very good job with these pathetic older input devices
as well. I have no problems whatsoever using CH Flightstick or Phase9
Phantom 2 P.C. from Win95, work the same as from DOS mode. Sure people
have reported problems with some wheels and pedals, but so have
Nascar 2 drivers in MS-DOS.

You apparently don't have the faintest idea what the digital mode for
DirectInput means. MS-DOS games use the old way of utilizing the game
port, which means varying readings from the input devices even when you
are not touching it, the need for "speed compensating game cards" (yes,
in MS-DOS, not Win95) etc.

Fine, so you are happy with the big latency, varying readings, no
multibutton support without silly kludges and direct support in each
game separately etc. with MS-DOS games. Siberia teaches I guess.

In most games and systems.

As if you knew anything about it. You cannot polish a turd, that is
your defective MS-DOS input devices.

I didn't realize Wingman Extreme Digital is made by Microsoft.
Neither is Gravis Gamepad Pro for that matter.

And you are wrong anyway. CH Flightstick works fine in Win95, I just
tried it. No difference whatsoever to using it in MS-DOS mode.
I can understand if you've had some problems with kludgy workaround DOS
flightsticks which are connected to your keyboard, serial port, EIDE
port and game port at the same time, just so that you can use more than
two buttons at the same time. Like I said, these DOS input devices are
very messy, and require _direct_ support from _each_ MS-DOS game
separately. They give lots of people problems even in MS-DOS.

I think I just read about "Digital Edge" steering wheel and pedals, and
it seems they are the best such devices for the PC. I'm not quite sure,
but that "Digital" in the name seems to suggest it is indeed using this
better digital mode of DirectInput. AT LAST someone woke up, while the
old dinosaurs like CH and Thrustmaster still make only DOS input
devices with their inferior accuracy and latency in MS-DOS.

And all the DOS flightsticks I've tried have worked the same in Win95
and MS-DOS mode. Maybe you have configured something wrong in your
system?

Joe

Im no fan of Win95. But the assertion below is without basis and reveals
that the person truly has no experience with DOS games. Yes DOS has less
overhead....but untrue that games ran faster...they didnt and never
will....WHY>>>>????

Because developers always use every bit of power availible. I have had
plenty of DOS games that ran slow. Plenty of DOS games that Ihad to turn
the graphics down on....matter of FACT...on my P-90 Pentium I had to
turn down most of the graphics on GP2 to achieve satisfactory Framerate.

Now do I *** about that....nah...cause the graphics in GP2 look
***in on my P-166....and Im sure they will look wonderful on my P-II
266.....the point being a developer makes a sim for the highest end
machines....and hopefully gives enough options to play on low end. Now
its accepteble to me to *** about developers who dont give enough
options to play the sim on the average machine at a high
framerate...HIGH meaning above 30fps....thats a very bad thing to do on
the developers side. CPR Demo manages to run slowly on my 166 with
3dfx...and there arent enough options to make it run fast...very
bad...so I wont be buying that....

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand

Not to get in a tizzy there mate...but I probably know a few things
about setting up DOS games...seeing as how I flew on the Damage, Inc.
Falcon Online Head to Head team...(2nd place sucks but hey this was the
entire US)....and your just wrong.

I have had plenty of DOS games that ran slow...a whole bunch.

PAPA DOC

Nope. That's what I get in Win95, in all games. DOS games work fine.

You really need to calm down, take a valium or two, and lay off the
childish insults.

This appears to be the sum total of your argument. I remain
unconvinced.

This may be true for you, but contradicts nothing in my argument.

Joe

Joe

No-one is saying that you can't make a playable game in Win95/NT. The
issue in question is whether or not that product will be as good as it
would have been were it written in DOS - the answer to that is, quite
simply, no.

Think about it. Take a BMW M3 Evo, European spec, and revel in the
performance of it for a few days. Now take delivery of a U.S. spec
version of the same car. Oh dear. Same car, but the addition of auto
transmission, air-conditioning and all the other frills that make it
easy to drive and a pleasure to use have clipped the wings of the
performance.

So too with Win95 and DOS. The Dos4GW extender was already putting
paid to the hassles of memory configuration, and even then DOS was
pretty user friendly and without all of the added extras that make
Win95 such a nightmare. Win95 has since had three years of evolution,
while DOS has had none - how good do you think DOS would be these days
if it was given three further upgrades?

Win95 is an _excellent_ environment for on-line stuff, spreadsheets,
ICQ, anything "non game". As soon as ultimate performance becomes an
issue Win95 is only a burden. Back to the car analogy again. Day to
day it is very nice to drive that M3 with air-con and auto-trans, but
when you arrive at the track you'd better hope the guy with the much
lighter Euro-spec is having an off-day, otherwise you'll never see
him.

Cheers!
John

Yes many people have said so lots of times. Lots of people claimed in
the past that Win95/NT is only good for Solitaire and maybe Tetris.
I just mentioned about that above.

Quite on the contrary. DOS games always had and have flakey sound and
multibutton controller support (only supporting some sound cards and
controllers, and not using the extra features in them), no cheap/free
3D API to support several 3D accelerators like OpenGL or Direct3D, hard
for the end-user to play 32 player Internet games etc. etc. etc.

Ok, I'll think about it real hard. Ummmmm... Quake was the pinnacle of
3D graphics in DOS games even utilizing VESA2.0, yet WinQuake is
faster. Ignition is faster in Win95 too. So is Wing Commander 4.
So is UAE (Amiga emulator).

Now I'm thinking of those games that are indeed faster in MS-DOS:
1 fps faster in DOS on a P133+, and with all the extra hassle with
sound cards, net *** and multibutton controller support. Is 1 fps
really that meaningful to you? You won't even see it with your bare
eyes.

For a "nightmare" it works damn well for most people. My relatives had
a real nightmare trying to install some MS-DOS games on their machine
a couple of weeks ago.

DOS had more years of evolution before Win95, didn't improve that much
anymore during that time, though.

Then why are those games I listed faster as Win95/DX versions than DOS
versions? And do you really care about 1 fps that much?

ttammi....Windows95 does have some problems,my main problem with it is
that for one the Virtual memory does not always work properly. Win95
will swap even if it isnt necessary(affecting game performance cuasing
pauses)thats my main gripe about win95. Pausing due to disk swapping.
secondly win95 gets cluttered with with files and registry entries that
may no longer be needed by programs that are no longer on ones hard
drive. Win95 is perfect for accountants,but for people who are
interested in SIMS NOT ARCADE games it has some bad flaws,mainly the way
it handles memory. If you are playing a sim such as Nascar2 or SODA 1
slight pause due to disk swapping ruins the whole game. DOS was easy to
use for those of us who knew how to read;) Win95 is more complicated
and takes a whole lot more reading to learn.Even if you are an advanced
user there are problems that you will encounter which require you to
deltree win and reinstall to fix,that should never be the case with any
OS IMHO.I like the direction win95 is heading for but currently there
are definately some probs with the OS especially for SIMMERS.The only
reason I ever bought a computer was for sims as *** consoles arent
currently capable of running a true simulation. I would be happy with
win95 if it handled VM better and wouldnt cause games to pause as it
swapped out memory(sometimes uneccesarily)to disk! As far as framerates
go my machine is just as fast in win95 as dos,thank goodness,but pausing
just ruins any game IMO.

What? Eh? DOS controller support has been _much_ less problematic than
Win95, no issues with soundcards - you've got a very short memory
there. As for no 3D API, what exactly did Win95 (actually Win3.1) have
at the time the last update was made to DOS? Nothing. Had development
been continued in DOS then it too would have had a standard API. It's
pretty obvious really.

If you think Quake was the pinnacle of DOS graphics you must have
lived a very sheltered life. ICR2-3D is way nicer, so too LinksLS and
a host of others. The original version of WinQuake was slower than
DOS, and only now has caught up with development of drivers etc. Of
course there's been no work at all to speed up the DOS version and the
playing field is not level, but I didn't expect you to mention that
since it refutes what you are trying to say.

I have no hassle at all in DOS. Open your eyes and look around - see
al these messages with "missing .dll file", DirectX problems, jumpy
controller responses - these are all Win95.

Yes, because the new machine is set up for Win95. No DOS soundcard
drivers, no boot to DOS support, PnP ignores DOS etc etc. Nothing to
do with DOS and everything to do with manufacturers designing systems
purely around Win95.

Oh yes, and Win3.1 was a killer *** system at that time. <chuckle>
It did everything it could with the hardware and architecture of the
time, you can't ask much more than that. It's something Win95 can't
claim.

No, I care that I get 55fps in ICR2-3D and yet the people who wrote
Win95 can only give me 15fps of far inferior graphics. I care that
Monster Truck Madness is jumpy with D3D and Rendition NASCAR2 is
supersmooth. I care that no matter what performance I have in a game,
Win95 is sucking up some CPU cycles in the background. Win95 is a
great product, but to claim that it is empirically faster than DOS is
nonsense. It sits on top of DOS and takes CPU power to run, how can it
possibly do anything other than slow the system down, no matter how
little.

Cheers!
John

:
: >>You've grabbed the wrong end of the stick there.
: >We'll see about that.
:
: Argumentative rather than constructive? Well, I guess I expected
: that...
:
: >>The issue in question is whether or not that product will be as good
: >>as it would have been were it written in DOS - the answer to that is,
: >>quite simply, no.
: >
: >Quite on the contrary. DOS games always had and have flakey sound and
: >multibutton controller support (only supporting some sound cards and
: >controllers, and not using the extra features in them), no cheap/free
: >3D API to support several 3D accelerators like OpenGL or Direct3D, hard
: >for the end-user to play 32 player Internet games etc. etc. etc.
:
: What? Eh? DOS controller support has been _much_ less problematic than
: Win95, no issues with soundcards - you've got a very short memory
: there. As for no 3D API, what exactly did Win95 (actually Win3.1) have
: at the time the last update was made to DOS? Nothing. Had development
: been continued in DOS then it too would have had a standard API. It's
: pretty obvious really.
:
: >Ok, I'll think about it real hard. Ummmmm... Quake was the pinnacle of
: >3D graphics in DOS games even utilizing VESA2.0, yet WinQuake is
: >faster. Ignition is faster in Win95 too. So is Wing Commander 4.
: >So is UAE (Amiga emulator).
:
: If you think Quake was the pinnacle of DOS graphics you must have
: lived a very sheltered life. ICR2-3D is way nicer, so too LinksLS and
: a host of others. The original version of WinQuake was slower than
: DOS, and only now has caught up with development of drivers etc. Of
: course there's been no work at all to speed up the DOS version and the
: playing field is not level, but I didn't expect you to mention that
: since it refutes what you are trying to say.
:
: >Now I'm thinking of those games that are indeed faster in MS-DOS:
: >1 fps faster in DOS on a P133+, and with all the extra hassle with
: >sound cards, net *** and multibutton controller support. Is 1 fps
: >really that meaningful to you? You won't even see it with your bare
: >eyes.
:
: I have no hassle at all in DOS. Open your eyes and look around - see
: al these messages with "missing .dll file", DirectX problems, jumpy
: controller responses - these are all Win95.
:
: >For a "nightmare" it works damn well for most people. My relatives had
: >a real nightmare trying to install some MS-DOS games on their machine
: >a couple of weeks ago.
:
: Yes, because the new machine is set up for Win95. No DOS soundcard
: drivers, no boot to DOS support, PnP ignores DOS etc etc. Nothing to
: do with DOS and everything to do with manufacturers designing systems
: purely around Win95.
:
: >DOS had more years of evolution before Win95, didn't improve that much
: >anymore during that time, though.
:
: Oh yes, and Win3.1 was a killer *** system at that time. <chuckle>
: It did everything it could with the hardware and architecture of the
: time, you can't ask much more than that. It's something Win95 can't
: claim.
:
: >Then why are those games I listed faster as Win95/DX versions than DOS
: >versions? And do you really care about 1 fps that much?
:
: No, I care that I get 55fps in ICR2-3D and yet the people who wrote
: Win95 can only give me 15fps of far inferior graphics. I care that
: Monster Truck Madness is jumpy with D3D and Rendition NASCAR2 is
: supersmooth. I care that no matter what performance I have in a game,
: Win95 is sucking up some CPU cycles in the background. Win95 is a
: great product, but to claim that it is empirically faster than DOS is
: nonsense. It sits on top of DOS and takes CPU power to run, how can it
: possibly do anything other than slow the system down, no matter how
: little.
:
: Cheers!
: John

JOHN (RANTING ON DOS BEING BEST EVER!!!)

R:

I know you believe what you say and all. But somebody has to tell you
straight up. Your wrong. Win '95 understood is much better than DOS. You
make it sound like a game is completely different if programmed for DOS or
Win '95. There very similar a properly setup unit will result in equal
enough to be called equal performance between a dos program in dos, a dos
program running in  under w95 and a w95 game. When you see good or bad
performance on any platform one needs to look at the program not the O/S. It
really is that simple. Sorry.

This assumes a P90+ with 16 meg ram +. I will agree without the proper
resources win'95 will become a hazard. But if you stay at or above these
requirements the results will be equal enough to be a waste of time arguing.

For every dll missing you can give me I can give you a reason why you have
to edit config.sys and autoexec.bat for DOS plus throw in two user friendly
functions win '95 gives you over DOS. :)

Peace.
Q.B.M.

My Gateway came with a MS-DOS shortcut that restarts my computer in
MS-DOS with all the settings and drivers already configured.  I must say
it works great!! (surprised the hell out of me). =) Ive NEVER had a
problem so far with reconfiguring it to run flawlessly.  I am NOT saying
this is better or worse than Windows95 environment. My point is I just
havent had problems needing to reconfig things for different games and I
dont feel DOS is that hard to get setup.

Scott B. Husted
http://home.ptd.net/~sbhusted

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:47:24 -0500, "Qaz B Morphin"

Clarify this for me if you will. You have hardware. On top of that you
have the BIOS, and on top of that you have the O/S (DOS) which allows
you to run the software. Okay? Software talks to DOS which talks to
the hardware, with the occasional reference to the BIOS (more than
likely cached).

With Win95 you have hardware --> BIOS --> DOS --> Win95 --> software,
PLUS any other system apps that will be running in 95, desktop,
networking, a host of behind the scenes tasks. How can it _possibly_
be faster when all you have done is add tasks, all of which take CPU
cycles?

It's _THAT_ simple.

Win95 is far more user-friendly and I much prefer it as a ***
environment over DOS now that developers are getting to grips with it
(end of 97 right enough, but there you are!), but as an argument of
the *** power that each platform could theoretically deliver, Win95
loses every time. Just look at how your system gets so much faster
when you do a fresh install of Win95 - that is a graphic example of
the resources that are being eaten.

Cheers!
John