Trying to get zdoom dos working with 64-bit extender

[invictius]

Someone over on doomworld advised getting the latest version of cwsdpmi, for loading larger wads on zdoom 1.17 dos. With o34s, I'm getting "z_malloc: failes on allocation of 4808104 bytes" and sunlust just freezes the system (same as what happens with the default cwsdpmi). Was the advice given to me in error?

[wildweasel]

Is there a specific reason it needs to be DOS ZDoom?

[edit] I mean, ZDoom 1.17 has almost none of the features you'd associate with ZDoom nowadays, so I am utterly baffled why you're choosing it over the intended port, like PRBoom+. You say you're using a "64-bit extender," but is that there to make it run on hardware too new to run DOS programs? I am utterly baffled by your use case. Explain why you need any of that instead of using what's recommended by the WAD's author.

[Kinsie]

Someone over on doomworld advised

Link?

[Graf Zahl]

ZDoom 1.17 wasn't even fully Boom compatible...

[invictius]

Someone over on doomworld advised

Link?

https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/1844645

[wildweasel]

...So you're just using DOSBox. I don't really understand what your use case is, then.

[leileilol]

64mb allocation != 64-bit

Plus Dosbox is only limited to 64mb at most

I see this more of a "doctor it hurts when i do this" much like many of the other threads you've made

[Kinsie]

much like many of the other threads you've made

What are you talking about?

[Graf Zahl]

... and most of them could be tossed into the dumpster without losing anything of value.

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what "legacy" is supposed to mean.
No, for most it's not the type of computer that went out of use 10+ years ago, but old computers that are still in use and justify some discussion.
What I see here is mainly trying to get some info about systems nobody but the most hardcore retro user may still consider relevant. And as history has shown, the number of those users can probably counted with the fingers on one hand, i.e. it's a futile undertaking to get any info about this stuff these days.

[Kinsie]

There's also the bit where he just seems to be using emulators instead of actual retro hardware, without actually understanding anything about it. Like, if you're trying to get ZDoom running on an actual-ass PowerPC Mac or Silicon Graphics workstation or whatever, then more power to you, friend. You're probably nuts, but you're the kind of nuts I can at least respect. But just shoving ancient DOS ports into DOSbox or whatever because you read a TVTropes page about that old sci-fi cliche of ancient technology from an advanced simulation while half-ripped? Come on, dude. At least have a little respect for our time.

[invictius]

...So you're just using DOSBox. I don't really understand what your use case is, then.

Identical result on a real system and emulated system. If the results were any different across the board, I would have mentioned it.

64mb allocation != 64-bit

Plus Dosbox is only limited to 64mb at most

I see this more of a "doctor it hurts when i do this" much like many of the other threads you've made

https://sandmann.dotster.com/cwsdpmi/ claims you can access up to 4gb, and as mentioned I've also tried on real hardware.

[wildweasel]

and as mentioned I've also tried on real hardware.

Um...I don't see where it's ever mentioned (aside from in the specific post I quoted) that you're using real hardware. What kind of machine is it? And again, what specifically is the reason for using ZDoom 1.17 instead of, say, Boom or Eternity? You are being too vague, and I know nothing of your situation.

[leileilol]

Whenever I posted about running a Zdoom on an old PC, I accepted it for what it was and had realistic suggestions on how it could be better witn a corteous intent as it's possible to become "low-end blind". There was once a time when I could *almost* play Reelism on a P2 V3 rig (renderer on pause says yes, actor processing says no!). This was during a time when Randi ran Zdoom and she had made lots of assembly optimizations to support these older platforms, so that made sense.


but a desire to load recent "4gb" wads in old 1999 dos zdooms.... lolwut. Note that 4808104 bytes is ABOUT FIVE MEGABYTES

i'm reminded of the PCem forums where there would be one alleged oldschooler constantly demanding 512mb ram emulation to run the Win3.1 Living Books games from 1997 (this assumption comes from a vague 'out of memory' message) assuming 512mb was common in the 90s (because there would be socket5/7 motherboards that have support for addressing 1gb or higher memory on paper, and really the high end enthusiast expensive luxury PC by the end of 97 would have had 128mb)


personally i get much pleasure from getting my own game to work on Windows 95 and a PowerVR PCX2 4mb at the hands of nobody

[Rachael]

With a community such as this there is always a dichotomy of old and new and the ideas frequently conflict. In the end, new always prevails because the old always survives no matter what - today it is still possible to download ZDoom 2.8.1, assembly optimizations and all, with full Windows 98 support (or 95 if you want to run without sound), and run it on that old P4 sitting in your basement that everyone except you forgot even still existed. I am a preservationist and believe very strongly in the value of understanding time and everything that happens during it, because it helps to understand both historical context and where you are today. The very basis of today is yesterday, and understanding both is important for also understanding tomorrow.

What I have an issue with is this barrage of questions that are quite niche in this community. As Kinsie pointed out, every single thread in this subforum has one single author. And Graf made quite plain the value it has to 99% of the people who visit this forum - while very few would have put it in terms that Graf did, he ultimately expressed what those very 99% were thinking. To be quite frank, I have no interest in finding out if PB:AR is going to run on my 122 MHz with an S3 Trio on Windows 98. You know why? I don't have one. I know that PB:AR is going to run just fine on my 2.6 GHz with burst capability and a GeForce 860 M, though, and it'll run quite well. That's what's important to me.

So at this point, I am faced with the consideration of pretty much closing this forum down. I agree with Kinsie - if you can manage to get that dust collector in your basement to do some impressive things that it shouldn't be able to do - more power to you. But don't sit here and barrage me with questions about what frame rate it'll have with X or Y mod - you're the one with the machine in question and a dust vacuum - put both to good use and find out.

[drfrag]

The most advanced stuff he will find for DOS is a few more recent versions of Eternity by hail-to-the-ryzen, i never managed to made them run in DosBox tough. About using CWSDPMI you'd need to enable virtual memory for big things to run, but probably would just get stuck writing to the "hard disk" due to lack of ram.
This reminds me of when i tried to test Duck3D on a 486 DX4 with only 16 MB and win95 i sold, i could not decompress the rar due to lack of ram not even under real DOS. I mostly use PCem now since it emulates real hardware, i have a couple of real 486 DX 33 machines collecting dust tough.
Edit: BTW ZDoom 1.17 was unstable, i think there were a few lost pointers or something.
Actually there's a lot of people interested in old hardware it seems, vogons is a forum with a lot of activity and prices for it are rising high fast.