Ideal DOS Laptop?

[n3xu5]

Greetings!

This would be my first post and first time visiting these forums, so let me start off by asking what may be a common question.

What are the ideal specs for a DOSBOX? (not to be confused with the software emulator), by this I mean a dos gaming computer... I'm looking at two possible laptop candidates right now and I'm not sure if I should grab either just yet. Perhaps some of the dos guru's can provide some enlightenment to the unenlightened.

Candidate#1 - TOSHIBA PORTEGE 3015CT
Intel PII: 266Mhz
Memory: 32MB EDO DRAM (Upgradeable to 96MB)
Video: NeoMagic (2160) 2MB 32bit
Sound: Yamaha OPL3-SA3 (Supports SoundBlaster Pro v3.01)
Storage: Internal 4GB Hdd

Candidate#2 - ThinkPad 770ED
Intel PII: 266Mhz
Memory: 256MB SDRAM
Video: Trident Cyber9397 2MB or 4MB (unknown which size)
Sound: CS4237B Audio controller
Storage: Internal 9GB Hdd

Which setup would be ideal for DOS games in native DOS and anything that may require Win95 DOS? Opinions? All criticism is welcome!

[kedawa]

Old laptop screens are not suitable for gaming.
Do yourself a favour and either get a desktop or go with emulation.

[n3xu5]

Old laptop screens are not suitable for gaming.
Do yourself a favour and either get a desktop or go with emulation.

Why are old laptop screens not suitable? 16+ Million colors is not good?

[JLukas]

What is the game with the highest requirements you plan to play? IIRC, a PII 266Mhz should be good for games up to the very late 1990s.

Make sure the laptop has a VGA out, in case you're disappointed with the screen quality.

[Edmond Dantes]

The colors aren't the problem. Resolutions are. Basically any DOS game is going to look... far worse than usual.

I had a DOS laptop once. I know.

Another issue is the onboard sound. If you're going with pure DOS, then you can't accept a Soundblaster "Compatible." It has to be an actual Soundblaster, or you're fucked. Again, I've had laptops with "compatible" soundcards before, and basically they wouldn't work outside of a Windows environment, and even within Windows they wouldn't work for most games.

I second what the other guy said: either get a desktop or go with emulation.

[Jorpho]

The colors aren't the problem. Resolutions are. Basically any DOS game is going to look... far worse than usual.

Resolution? That doesn't seem to be the right word. Perhaps you mean response time?

[Gameguy]

Neither of those laptops would be good for DOS, the processors are too fast for most old DOS programs. You'd need to use a program to slow them down which would defeat the purpose of using a dedicated DOS machine. For DOS an Intel 486 should be fast enough, if you're using Win 95 a Pentium 1 would do.

[Edmond Dantes]

No, I mean resolution.

The problem with Laptops you see is that everything has to be just so. On a desktop, you can set the resolution to whatever you want and it'll still look smooth, but on laptops they tend to have one specific resolution they like, and if you go outside of that everything starts to look really blocky. Not just games either--I had one where if the res wasn't at 800x600 or higher then even the fonts in a word processor would start to look like they were from the Atari 2600.

Most DOS games play at 320x240, so unless you're in love with the Intellivision aesthetic you're better off with a desktop or Dosbox (which somehow usually compensates for this)

[dgdgagdae]

DOSBox is just far too good to make setting up an old computer worthwhile, in my opinion. I'm all for playing on real hardware, but we're talking about emulating a computer on a computer. DOSBox does it so well, and you don't have to worry about drivers or config.sys. I don't miss those days at all. I run D-Fend Reloaded as a front end to make configuration so much easier.

Why would anyone not use DOSBox?

[kedawa]

The screens in most older laptops are passive matrix TFT and have awful ghosting problems.
I've seen some screens that are so bad that moving objects basically just disappear until they stop moving.

[Tupin]

Yes, the problem is that most laptops sold around the time DOS was common had passive matrix screens. They're fine if you're just writing on it doing business-type work, but any game is practically impossible to play.

So whatever laptop you consider, make sure that it has an active matrix screen. Try some of the higher-end laptops, they had active matrix screens.

[PC-ENGINE HELL]

Why would anyone not use DOSBox?

Because we'd rather be one of the cool kids on the block with the real deal running still. Makes us look cool and shit. Lance Boyle doesn't approve of no DOSbox emu garbage.

[Gameguy]

DOSBox isn't fully compatible with all games. I actually got the program to play an old game when I didn't feel like setting up my old PC, only it crashed about halfway through playing it and I didn't bother to save anything as it was an adventure game where you really couldn't die. I looked it up and it happened to be one of the few games not fully compatible, which made it unplayable for me due to the crash that happens at that specific location I visited(which is required to finish the game). Just my luck that the first program I wanted to use was one of the few that isn't compatible.

[Dave Farquhar]

If you have your heart set on a laptop, you'll be better off with a 486 or an early Pentium. The processor speed is usually a better match for what DOS games will expect, and the native screen resolution is more likely to be the 640x480 or 800x600 that DOS games expected. But the screen will be slower and less responsive than a CRT. You may still want to hook up a CRT for some games. And the sound, if it has any, isn't likely to be 100% Soundblaster or Adlib compatible.

I think you'll be happier with a small form factor desktop with a 486 or Pentium in it. All of the big names of the 90s made something along those lines. You'll be able to put a true blue Soundblaster in it for good compatibility, and it'll cost less. It'll take up more space, but it'll provide a better and more authentic experience. In the early 1990s, people didn't buy laptops to play games on because they were so much more expensive.

I'd also suggest you decide which era you're after. I had some games that ran great on a 486 or slower, but ran way too fast on a Pentium. And some later games wouldn't run well on anything less than a Pentium. Usually a 66 MHz 486 is a good compromise but your mileage will vary.

[lauraleebm]

I guess ideal laptop is a Pentium 150 with Voodoo Banshee

[Jaruff]

Because we'd rather be one of the cool kids on the block with the real deal running still. Makes us look cool and shit. Lance Boyle doesn't approve of no DOSbox emu garbage.

True. I have a dedicated machine (33mhz or 133mhz with the magical turbo button) for DOS gaming. 5.25" floppy drive, CD-ROM drive, and everything that covers most of your older games.

For a DOS laptop, an old Toshiba Satellite Pro works well. Many (if not all) have a Yamaha chipset for the sound which won't let you down. I used one for a while as my car MP3 player.

[beigemore]

I can understand wanting a real DOS computer (desktop) for gaming at home, but I really wouldn't want to mess with an old 386/486 or even Pentium laptop. They weigh a ton, the LCD screens are horrible, and good luck finding a battery that fits and still holds a charge. Going the DOSBox route would also allow you to get Roland MT-32 audio while on the go, which would be awesome.

I'm all for the pure DOS gaming experience, but sometimes it just makes me sense to go with DOSBox... and you'd also have fewer compatibility issues or crashes in your games.