4 ms·
Well 386, but 286 compatibility would be nice also. I'm still annoyed that AMD dropped virtual 8086 mode from x86_64- I liked it because Windows ran MS-DOS pro
by jhallenworld 6y ago
Well 386, but 286 compatibility would be nice also. I'm still annoyed that AMD dropped virtual 8086 mode from x86_64- I liked it because Windows ran MS-DOS programs better than MS-DOS ever did and I would still use this facility if it was available in 64-bit operating systems. Virtual x86 mode in Linux was also pretty good, but the graphics modes were better supported in Windows.
- a1369209993 6y agoTo be fair, anything written against a actual 8086 can be brute-force software emulated in faster than real time at this point. It's no excuse, but it's less of a problem than it could be.
- jhallenworld 6y agoThis is entirely true, but I can tell you that DOS OrCAD does not work as well as in DOSBoX as it does in Windows-XP. The issue is not performance, but a matter of the variable size video modes available in Windows and not on DOSBoX.
- a1369209993 6y agoOh, absolutely; I wasn't saying that a full-featured emulator actually exists, just that the performance difference was huge enough that you could get away with using one as a replacement for amd64's missing virtualization. Video mode support is a operating system interface problem rather than a hardware-can't-run-fast-enough problem.