Talk:DOSBox/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 05:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Lead

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Short and snappy. Has all the details

Development

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Gives a concise narrative of the history of DOS and how Windows 3.0 ran on top of this. The evolution to Windows 95 and thereafter to Windows XP - which would not run DOS applications is given. The end of support for DOS by MS is given, along with the development of DOSBox, leading to a beta test release on Sourceforge. Concise, to the point.

Features

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• This contains necessary infomation to understand the operation of DOSBox on new machines with different filesystems. A graphical front end is noted, along with the long-forgotten 8.3 file naming system. The note about DOS Malware is cautionary. Facilities such as screenshots, audio codecs and mapping a game controller are mentioned.

OS Emulation

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• This refers to the capacity of DOSBox to run operating systems (Windows 3.1) and access commands used at the Dos prompt. Mounting itself to a virtual drive is an important note - particularly with regard to host box system security; configurability options are given.

Hardware Emulation

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Hardware emulation is explained - real mode and protected mode as required by DOS programs. Other options are provided by dynamic instruction translation. The ability to use the DirectDraw or OpenGL APIs is a vital element for DOS gaming. Emulation of 3dfx Voodoo Graphics sound cards and Direct3D citations appear to need updating. Access to modems using TCP/IP protocol and IPX network tunneling is noted along with ports for joysticks and flightsticks for gaming / multiplayer gaming.

Reception

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• It would seem this section needs updating. July 2008 and October 2015 are statistically distant!

Usage

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• It is good to see the development of the Wine compatibility layer. It is also appropriate to note the Internet Archive's repository of DOS games to its software library and other options - playing in a web browser - that are available to the teeny boppers of today that never had to enter a command on a black screen to start a program. Sheesh.

Commercial

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• The viability and utility of DOSBox is illustrated by its inclusion in commercial releases of DOS games; Valve's Steam, LucasArts, Sierra Entertainment, and so forth. It is interesting to see EA Games use this also. Wolfenstein 3D? My, my.

 

---

This review is incomplete; following sections to come. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Notes

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Interesting to see the SVN Changelog is upto 2021-01-12 18:52 - that is, today.
• Notes are all relevant to the article and contain accessdates; linked to archived dates where needful.
• Note 58 (German) is a dead link.

 

---

GA Review completed upto the end of NOTES. More to come. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

End Matter

References

• References are appropriate.

External Links

• Goes to DOSBox website; appropriate.

Is it is Broad in its coverage?

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• A broad coverage that any user of MS-DOS could comprehend - along with any DOS gamer who booted a machine directly into their games bypassing Windows 3.x
• The sections on OS Emulation and Hardware Emulation are needful inclusions with developments and the present capacity of DOSBox and gaming functionality.
• A broad coverage, not overweening in any manner. Well scribed which leads to the following:

More End Matter Stuff:

• Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?
• Mais oui; Yes.

1. Is it stable?

• This page was first created on 31 August 2004 and has had 974 editors since.
• Lot of IP addresses have done editing (152.132.8.71) along with bots doing cleanup.
• Stable page with a long history due unfolding developments and the long life of Windows XP and its protected mode preventing access to the system hardware.

1. Top editors are

• FreeMediaKid
• Hampastrami
• GuyMacon
• Monkbot

• It is illustrated by images ?
• Images are appropriate.

Overall

A well scribed article with NPOV and excellent notes. A great history of computing and gaming included in the narrative of DOSBox.

Conclusion

• Lets sort the matters raised above.

--Whiteguru (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Whiteguru, I looked at the three issues that needed some fixing. I repaired one link that you reported was broken, and I decided to delete the mention of the 3dfx Voodoo graphics card, due to the lack of news since the 2010 announcement. The last issue, about expanding the Reception section, unfortunately seems impossible or at least extremely difficult to get over, for before and since this review I have searched a great deal of the Internet and Internet Archive, using important keywords and even broadening my searches by limiting the keywords in hopes of finding another DOSBox review. If grinding the Internet seemed boring, it did not help that I was not able to find anything useful, but at least I can lay the issue of missing content to rest. I hope this article can now pass the GA test. FreeMediaKid! 00:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@FreeMediaKid!: OK, thanks for taking those steps and resolving the issues. I will resolve the GA Review now. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Resolved