One might hope that could get a little better in time. But I imagine it's still faster than the ancient systems it emulates, so aside from power usage e.g. on a laptop, presumably it's still usable for most purposes, if not ideal.
> On Oct 4, 2018, at 03:36, Dominik Reichardt <domi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > JFYI, while the 64bit DOSBox now builds and runs correctly, the performance > penalty is still enormous. DOSBox built in 64bit is running at roughly 55% of > a 32bit build. > > Dom > >> On 4. Oct 2018, at 02:39, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com >> <mailto:ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I have the update done and I'm using it now. >> >> Just working out the final dets. >> >> Ken >> >> On 2018-10-03, at 4:23 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: >> >>> On www.dosbox.com <http://www.dosbox.com/>, I see >>> >>> Thursday, August 30th, 2018 - Qbix >>> DOSBox 0.74-2 has been released! >>> >>> A maintenance release for DOSBox 0.74, which solves the following problems: >>> Windows: Fix auto/max cycles algorithm on Windows 7, which helps with >>> stuttering audio. >>> Mac OS X: Bring a 64 bit version and improve performance. >>> Linux: Fix the 64bit dynrec cpu core and a lot of compilation problems. Add >>> patches for the WINE Team. >>> >>> The game compatibility should be identical to 0.74. >>> >>> We have saved all game fixes for the upcoming 0.75 release, which will >>> enter regression testing soon. This release has been created so you can go >>> back to 0.74-2, in case we happen to break your favourite game in 0.75. >>> >>> >>> Has anyone tried this yet? Given Mojave, a 64-bit version that works and >>> performs acceptably would be good! >>> >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
