Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SDL Now Supports DOS

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 136 posts

Re: SDL Now Supports DOS

#91

Post by zzo38computer »

sedatk wrote: post #15
jan_Sate wrote: post #5

Uhm... excuse me? Why? Is there anyone even using DOS for anything serious these days?

Most computers in Turkey come with FreeDOS preinstalled because there's a law that states all computers must be sold with an operating system. FreeDOS turns out to be the cheapest and easiest. That's why you don't let people who have never touched a computer write tech laws. You get results like this.

The computer is not very usable without an operating system. I think it would be reasonable for the computer to have Forth or BASIC or something like that in ROM, like many older computers do, so that the computer is usable without an operating system (but that you could also install an operating system if you wanted it).

Re: SDL Now Supports DOS

#95

Post by qsera »

mrweasel wrote: post #32
jan_Sate wrote: post #5

Uhm... excuse me? Why? Is there anyone even using DOS for anything serious these days?

Perhaps not serious, but I think people gravitate towards older systems these days because they are easier to conceptualize. It's not unrealistic for a single person to have a complete grasp of e.g. the C64 and it's programming environment. DOS is similarly constraint, but also easier for you to form a more or less complete mental model around. Some people love computers and making them do weird stuff, older computer…

Yea, it is like looking at the insides of a mechanical clock vs looking into an electronic one.

The former is mesmerizing, intriguing, inviting and inspiring. The later? you can't wait to put the lid back on...

Re: SDL Now Supports DOS

#96

Post by somat »

looneysquash wrote: post #47

For a open source project like SDL is, for something like this, it's usually a matter of how invasive it is, and how likely the contributors seem to stick around and maintain it. Different projects have different policies, and I don't know what SDLs is. But they already have a lot of ports, so I trust they know what they're getting themselves into.

These obscure architectures are almost always one person with a dream, one hero willing to step up make it happen and maintain it. My favorite is the openbsd luna88k https://www.openbsd.org/luna88k.html

I don't have any real clue how many openbsd luna 88k users there are in the wild, it was an obscure machine released, I think, only in japan, so most users, if they exist, are probably japanese, that is, out of my normal view scope. So as far as I can tell there is one user, the porter. But every release a couple weeks after the standard release date he comes out of the woods and drops the luna88k files and packages. I suspect it takes that long to compile on an actual luna88k. But that is all it takes and luna88k is an official hardware platform of openbsd.

I don't have nor do I really want a luna88k but that guy is sort of my hero for keeping it going like this.

Re: SDL Now Supports DOS

#97

Post by versteegen »

vunderba wrote: post #26

Awesome. I wonder how this would work with a 386+ targeted MS-DOS executable from FreeBASIC, which supports binding to SDL. [1] - https://github.com/freebasic/fbc

I'm going to find out. I've been meaning for years to port the OHRRPGCE back to DOS, where it came from.

I'm very surprised to see SDL3 re-gain DOS support, since they've aggressively dropped support for almost every port/OS they had in the SDL 1.2 days.

Re: SDL Now Supports DOS

#98

Post by vunderba »

versteegen wrote: post #97
vunderba wrote: post #26

Awesome. I wonder how this would work with a 386+ targeted MS-DOS executable from FreeBASIC, which supports binding to SDL. [1] - https://github.com/freebasic/fbc

I'm going to find out. I've been meaning for years to port the OHRRPGCE back to DOS, where it came from. I'm very surprised to see SDL3 re-gain DOS support, since they've aggressively dropped support for almost every port/OS they had in the SDL 1.2 days.

Very cool. I'd never heard of OHRRPGCE (Official Hamster Republic Role Playing Game Construction Engine) before. I was going to say it feels like an early predecessor to something like RPG Maker but I think RPG Maker originally came out in the early ’90s for the Japanese PC-98 computers.

From the wikipedia entry [1] for OHRRPGCE

> It runs at an 8-bit color depth, by default creates games that run at a 320 × 200 resolution.

It's funny but I bet anyone else in here who also grew up with the QBASIC interpreter as a kid instantly thinks SCREEN 13 when they read something like this.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Hamster_Republic_Role...

Re: SDL Now Supports DOS

#99

Post by suprjami »

Dwedit wrote: post #21

Technically this already worked with HXDOS, which emulated DirectDraw well enough that SDL could use it.

Wait what.

What SDL would you compile for? Win32 with exclusive fullscreen? With a VESA resolution like 640x480?

Re: SDL Now Supports DOS

#100

Post by suprjami »

klik99 wrote: post #64

Awesome. Why? But awesome. There does not need to be a reason why

With the ease and speed of browser-based DOSBox (look at internet archive), DOS becomes a highly portable target for small games and even non-trivial games.

Anything up to the complexity of mid-90s AAA titles can run practically anywhere with a keyboard and mouse.

Games like Tomb Raider, Command & Conquer, Quake, etc. This is pretty compelling if you want a "it just works" platform.

Having SDL now makes that even easier.

Post reply on HN