Slashdot Mirror

DosBox can already do Glide. Look at the Daum SVN builds of DosBox. A lot of cool patches rolled into these builds, including Voodoo/Glide support. You'll need to sleaze a copy of Windows 95 but it works.

If you use the Daum build, also consider using the latest version of DBGL which supports the extra experimental config settings.

I think for oldschool PC gaming, emulation isn't quite there like it is for oldschool consoles. Yet. The amazing combinations of HIMEM.SYS, EMM386, and SMARTDRV (and clones, HyperDisk was truly amazing) that each developer chose to run with makes for lots of variables that emulation seems ill-equipped to deal with.

Actually, this makes DOSBox a much better solution, especially with a frontend (like D-Fend Reloaded or DBGL [warning, it's Java-based]) that maintains separate configuration files for each game. It also handles booters (those the-game-is-its-own-OS titles) quite well. Now you only have to configure the funky memory setups once for each game, and you're set.

I don't know how much of OO is still built on java, but getting rid of this layer and re-writing EVERYTHING in some good HL language (C, C++, etc) would help with the speed issue. I'm guessing that the Java runtime layer is taking a godawfull time to initialize and suck up all the resources it needs. Finally there is support.

That is so much BS. First, OO.org is not written in Java, Java is only used to connect to a database and for some plugins. Seconds, I am using Java applications all the time, like Eclipse and Visual Paradigm and I couldn't care less if Firefox were written in Java, because startup and speed of Firefox is the same as all other Java applications I ever had. Try using Lotus Symphony with is 100% Java, it is the same speed as OO.org in startup and usage. DBGL (dosbox game launcher) is another Java application and it runs fast as well.

I'm sorry but that a Java application is always slower than a C/C++ application is so much BF I could vomit. That is just not true anymore and this myth is based on the very early JavaVM. You can also try a 3D Engine in Java http://jmonkeyengine.org/groups/tag/projects and see for yourself how "slow" the 3D applications and games are.

Unless the finger _really_ is damaged...

Am I the only one who thought of this when they saw this article? Sco being the flying fish of course.

Ok more screenshots of the features shown in Apple's broadcast, nice for end users I guess, but what about some details for developers?

Does Apple solve the problems for international users? Or must we wait until KDE has perfected it and Apple starts losing international users? I want to share my shareware with people who's language I cannot speak or write. No I'm not a paying Apple Developer, so that are things a nerd like me wants to know.

Dennis SCP

Why doesn't Apple support multiple virtual desktops?

Because that would be confusing as there are real multiple desktops. You can have multiple desktops active at the same time. Say one for surfing and loading trojans by accident and another for online banking and you know that they are safely separated from each other.

It's called Fast User Switching, but realise that they are all active at the same time. Adding virtual desktops which are not separate would confuse the user and water down simple secure separation of tasks functionality.

Oops, I thought I did my finacnes on another desktop but I guess I've accidentally shared it with this guy who send me a funny application via mail or chat, because the separation was virtual/visual only.

You can have separate desktops on Mac OS X and they are really separate, that is a major plus!

Sure I would like multiple desktops within one user account but they should be separate and only have user permitted information exchange, nothing automatically allowed. Yes, that would be called sandboxing and I advocated sandboxes for Mac OS 10.3. I hope they will be in 10.4 as a 2005 surprise because it would stop trojan applications and even protect against a bug in the webbrowser or email applications if those would run inside their own sandbox.

Yes, you can still ask Apple for Sandboxes as they have introduced the basic technology in 10.3 and still have many months before 10.4 is ready.

Dennis SCP

Reminds me of propeller clocks (also here, here, here...)
...or the similar mechanically scanned displays.
Spacewriter sells some very cool full-color displays. Their iBall 3D display is also sold at AudioVisualizers - check their site out for more animated demos.
There's also the Virtual Game System (Google cache) which was amazing; unfortunately the site is down so you'll have to settle for text and no pictures.

> With a smidge more automation, you would only
> have to click on a link in a web browser, and after
> a minute or so, without any other user intervention,
> the .app is up and running.

That is great, and I read something similar is / will be available to Mac OS X, but doesn't that need sandboxing?

Sandboxes in Mac OS 10.4?

--
Dennis SCP

As Apple Mail does not execute application code the only danger is the user itself starting a trojan application. Apple could stop that from being harmful by using their upcoming Fast (active) User Switching. I wrote how:
Mac GUI comments: Sandbox [informative article at my homepage]

Can it simulate this?

If Mac OS panther would use its Fast User Switching to isolate unfamiliar applications it would render even the most deceptive and destructive trojans harmless.

Read more and vote if you think that Apple should implement such a feature, clickable link:

Mac GUI comments: Fast User Switching could halt the danger of Trojan Viruses on Mac OS X

32 bit color mouse pointers with support for transparency and animation.

This is very kewl...I am actually trying to do my own pointer set...if I'm not mistaken, this is a first for those using the X86 platform...

It seriously brings back memories of the Amiga...

Of course, the performance enhancements are kewl too :)

Screenshot of standard red mouse pointer.

http://home.quicknet.nl/mw/prive/dennis.scp/s/safa ri

The idea is NOT to add tabs inside a window. But to place a new window at the exact same place as your previous window and let any obscured windows pop up a tab.

So instead of indenting that new window to the lower right to reveal a clickable border as used today, I say let the windows behind the current window pop up a tab to show their name and icon. The windows stay independent and the screen has less clutter than with today's jumpy stacking system. Power-users can cycle the windows in a tab-like fashion using the [option] key.