I'm curious why, in the categorization of movies by system, DOS, Windows, and MSX are lumped in together. The three have very little in common in terms of hardware they run on, or software that emulates them, or tricks that are supported.
Since this category is expanding now as a result of the new DosBox-with-rerecording and Hourglass, it seems to me it would be clearer to split it into three. There's 23 DOS movies, 12 MSX, and 7 Windows, each of which is a larger set than the current categories for Wii, Sega Saturn, or Lynx.
Good topic, I've also brought this up on IRC a few weeks ago. One thing because it's now hard to just get a list of MSX videos.
Note that there are also console versions of MSX... And the hardware of MSX1 is very similar to Sega SG-1000 and Colecovision.
I'm curious why, in the categorization of movies by system, DOS, Windows, and MSX are lumped in together. The three have very little in common in terms of hardware they run on, or software that emulates them, or tricks that are supported.
DOS and Windows have very little in common in terms of hardware they run on?
I thought they run on the exact same hardware.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Radiant wrote:
I'm curious why, in the categorization of movies by system, DOS, Windows, and MSX are lumped in together. The three have very little in common in terms of hardware they run on, or software that emulates them, or tricks that are supported.
DOS and Windows have very little in common in terms of hardware they run on?
I thought they run on the exact same hardware.
I thought the same thing when reading it. Also that DOS and Windows run on many of the same emulators.
But then I realized Radiant probably means DOS and Windows vs. MSX.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
DOS and Windows have very little in common in terms of hardware they run on?
Actually, yes. DOS games run on something like a 80386 16-bit 16 MHz processor, whereas Windows games run on a Quadcore 64-bit 2000+ MHz chip. Arguably a Gameboy and a Gameboy Advance have more in common than that. You would have a hard time installing DOS on nowadays hardware (except in an emulator, of course) and likewise it would be problematic to get an old 386 to run Windows XP. Sure, a Win7 machine can run old DOS games (in an emulator), but then, a Wii can also run SNES games.
Point is, retro DOS games really shouldn't be in the same category as modern Windows games, for the same reason that NES games don't belong in the same category as N64. MSX is completely unrelated to either, of course.
Actually, yes. DOS games run on something like a 80386 16-bit 16 MHz processor, whereas Windows games run on a Quadcore 64-bit 2000+ MHz chip.
Eh, I might not be always up to the latest developments in TAS-supporting emulation, but I'm pretty sure we are far away from emulating the newest Windows running on the newest PC hardware.
In the context of TASing, so far, "Windows game" and "DOS games" are almost the same thing, the only difference being the underlying OS. Most Windows games I have seen TASed are for Windows 3, which ran in the exact same computers as DOS (and, in fact, ran purely on top of DOS.)
(Also, even modern 64-bit PCs still support the 30-years-old 16-bit mode which DOS was designed for. In principle it should be possible to install and run DOS on a modern PC. Many of the DOS games won't run properly because they depend on or assume hardware that doesn't exist anymore, or is way too fast. But in principle if a game has been sufficiently well made, it should be possible to run in on pure DOS even on a modern PC. I wouldn't be surprised if eg. DOS Quake would run on the most recent version of MS-DOS installed on a current PC. At least if your display hardware supports standard DOS protocols and resolutions. Most of them still do. You probably won't get any sounds, though, unless you have a sufficiently old SoundBlaster.)
Where exactly did this "modern Windows game TASes" concept come from? They don't exist, and as long as they don't, we don't need to put them in a separate category from DOS games.
Cave Story (2004) is a famous freeware indie game notable for being made entirely by one person, Daisuke "Pixel" Amaya.
. . .
The program used to make this run, Hourglass, was also developed by nitsuja—with the creation of this run in mind. As such, it is our first published run of a Windows game.
Hourglass runs quality games released as late as 2004? Seems modern enough to me. :p
Where exactly did this "modern Windows game TASes" concept come from? They don't exist, and as long as they don't, we don't need to put them in a separate category from DOS games.
Maybe you should check the category again, then. There's seven modern Windows game TASes in there, and more under development in the modern Windows game subforum.
Cave Story (2004) is a famous freeware indie game notable for being made entirely by one person, Daisuke "Pixel" Amaya.
. . .
The program used to make this run, Hourglass, was also developed by nitsuja—with the creation of this run in mind. As such, it is our first published run of a Windows game.
Hourglass runs quality games released as late as 2004? Seems modern enough to me. :p
Cave Story does not exactly showcase the technology of 2004. More like 1994 (the year that Super Metroid was published.)
