Difference between revisions of "Talk:DOSBox"
(New section: OMG!! This is Great I LOVE THIS SITE) |
m (Reverted edits by 212.235.107.242 (Talk); changed back to last version by Duplode) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Legitimate users: sorry, but this page had to be protected to control the vandal - so you'll need to log in in order to edit it --[[User:Duplode|Duplode]] 17:42, 3 May 2009 (CEST) | Legitimate users: sorry, but this page had to be protected to control the vandal - so you'll need to log in in order to edit it --[[User:Duplode|Duplode]] 17:42, 3 May 2009 (CEST) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 02:42, 19 March 2010
CTG: Any configurations for worse computers?
Sort of... I used to run DOSBox pretty well on our other computer, a Sempron 2600+ like Chulk's, but with only 512MB RAM (processor seems to be far more critical than memory, though). Maybe I still have that config on this machine, I'll post it if I find it. Moreover, I could make it work properly on my deceased Athlon XP 2000+ (which had a mere 256MB...) - the config was not very different from the Sempron one, only with slightly less cycles, 12000 if I remember correctly.
Edit: Found it... ;-)--Duplode 01:48, 16 September 2008 (CEST)
Legitimate users: sorry, but this page had to be protected to control the vandal - so you'll need to log in in order to edit it --Duplode 17:42, 3 May 2009 (CEST)
