Free adventure........Divided.

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure (More info?)

Jenny100 wrote:
>> The .NET CLR (Common Language Runtime) implements what is known as a
>> "virtual machine" -- it is a computer implemented completely in
>> software.
>
>
> Sort of like DOSBox or ScummVM is a virtual machine?

Yes, especially DOSBox. You can also find emulators for various old machines
that run on Windows, such as Apple ][s, Commodore 64s, and PlayStations.

> Or like the DOS window in Win 2000 or XP?

No. That's not actually DOS, just a command interpreter that looks
(superficially) like the same one that was used in DOS. It's just
another way of talking to Windows. There's no actual DOS operating
system underneath it, which is why we need DOSBox.

> But you can't install .NET on a Unix computer, can you?
> Isn't it only for Microsoft Windows systems?

Non-Microsoft people are working on versions of .NET (Mono and dotGnu)
that will run on Unix. I don't think either are complete, yet, but there's
enough done that you can run lots of .NET programs with them.
--
David Tanguay http://www.sentex.ca/~datanguayh/
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure (More info?)

Rikard Peterson wrote:
> Jenny100 wrote in news:d32d2u0hvh@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>
>>Murray Peterson wrote:
>
>
>>>The .NET CLR (Common Language Runtime) implements what is known
>>>as a "virtual machine" -- it is a computer implemented completely
>>>in software.
>
>
> Aha! Then it was as I thought (but wasn't sure of). You also explained
> it much better than I ever could have done.
>
>
>>Sort of like DOSBox or ScummVM is a virtual machine?
>
>
> Yes!
>
>
>>Or like the DOS window in Win 2000 or XP?
>
>
> Well, no. The "DOS window" in Windows is just a place for typing
> commands. Starting a program from there is no different from starting
> it in some other way. Try typing "notepad" there for an example.

You mean you can't start a DOS game from it? I know you can't
start one that uses sound, but I thought it was a type
of emulated DOS interface.

>>>All applications written in a .NET language have their code
>>>compiled down to the assembly language for the .NET instruction
>>>set, which is then executed by the CLR on a real machine of your
>>>choice (including Unix platforms).
>>
>>But you can't install .NET on a Unix computer, can you?
>>Isn't it only for Microsoft Windows systems?
>
>
> Unless I'm misinformed, you're right, but there is Mono
> http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
> http://www.apcmag.com/apc/v3.nsf/0/22F356ECB65244E2CA256F6A00107C19

Thanks for the links.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure (More info?)

Murray Peterson wrote:
> Rikard Peterson <trumgottist@bigfoot.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96318F945287trumgottistbigfootco@127.0.0.1:
>
>
>>Jenny100 wrote in news:d32d2u0hvh@news3.newsguy.com:
>>
>>
>>>Murray Peterson wrote:
>>
>>>>The .NET CLR (Common Language Runtime) implements what is known
>>>>as a "virtual machine" -- it is a computer implemented completely
>>>>in software.
>>
>>Aha! Then it was as I thought (but wasn't sure of). You also explained
>>it much better than I ever could have done.
>>
>>
>>>Sort of like DOSBox or ScummVM is a virtual machine?
>>
>>Yes!
>
>
> Exactly like ScummVM and DOSBox -- only the machine is a different one,
> with a different "native" instruction set.
>
>
>>>But you can't install .NET on a Unix computer, can you?
>>>Isn't it only for Microsoft Windows systems?
>>
>>Unless I'm misinformed, you're right, but there is Mono
>>http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
>>http://www.apcmag.com/apc/v3.nsf/0/22F356ECB65244E2CA256F6A00107C19
>
>
> Mono is the .NET machine implemented to run on a Unix platform.
> Eventually (soon?), you should be able to run a .NET application (such as
> Divided) under the Mono implementaton. They can't call it ".NET"
> (copyright), but the virtual machine itself is the same.
>

So eventually you should be able to run games like Divided without
using Windows? Will Mono be able to fake things like DirectX 9
and Windows Media Player 9?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure (More info?)

David Adrien Tanguay wrote:
> Jenny100 wrote:
>
>>> The .NET CLR (Common Language Runtime) implements what is known as a
>>> "virtual machine" -- it is a computer implemented completely in
>>> software.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sort of like DOSBox or ScummVM is a virtual machine?
>
>
> Yes, especially DOSBox. You can also find emulators for various old
> machines
> that run on Windows, such as Apple ][s, Commodore 64s, and PlayStations.
>
>> Or like the DOS window in Win 2000 or XP?
>
>
> No. That's not actually DOS, just a command interpreter that looks
> (superficially) like the same one that was used in DOS.

Isn't it just an emulated DOS, the way DOSBox is?

> It's just
> another way of talking to Windows. There's no actual DOS operating
> system underneath it, which is why we need DOSBox.

But isn't DOSBox another way of talking to Windows?
Or translating for it?

>> But you can't install .NET on a Unix computer, can you?
>> Isn't it only for Microsoft Windows systems?
>
>
> Non-Microsoft people are working on versions of .NET (Mono and dotGnu)
> that will run on Unix. I don't think either are complete, yet, but there's
> enough done that you can run lots of .NET programs with them.

But probably not Divided, since it needs that other
Microsoft stuff like DirectX 9 and Media Player 9.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure (More info?)

David Adrien Tanguay wrote:
> Jenny100 wrote:
>
>>> Also, it's probably
>>> safer to be running .NET programs than native Windows programs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Safer how?
>
>
> The .NET code is newer than the Windows native code, and written in an era
> when Microsoft have actually started thinking about security. So the .NET
> code is probably much better written than most Windows codes.

Would that matter, considering that Windows is running underneath it?
Or is it circumventing Windows somehow and maintaining autonomy?

> The programs that run on .NET are limited to doing what .NET lets them do,
> and .NET has good protections when running things, much better than native
> Windows programs. It can avoid the dangerous bits of Windows, or at least
> access them in safe ways.

What would a virus written in .NET be capable of?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure (More info?)

Jenny100 wrote:
>>> Or like the DOS window in Win 2000 or XP?
>>
>> No. That's not actually DOS, just a command interpreter that looks
>> (superficially) like the same one that was used in DOS.
>
> Isn't it just an emulated DOS, the way DOSBox is?

No, it's not DOS at all, it's Windows. It's no different from clicking an
icon, or whatever, to get a program running.

> But isn't DOSBox another way of talking to Windows?
> Or translating for it?

Depends on your perspective. For the program running, DOSBox looks like
an old 396 running DOS with a SoundBlaster and a VESA compliant graphics
card. So the program knows nothing about Windows, it thinks it's talking
to DOS. I.e., DOSBox emulates a DOS box, and is called an emulator.
(I think DOSBox runs on Linux, too.)
--
David Tanguay http://www.sentex.ca/~datanguayh/
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure (More info?)

Jenny100 wrote in
news:c%J5e.3239$lP1.3046@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

[regarding the command prompt in Windows XP]

> You mean you can't start a DOS game from it? I know you can't
> start one that uses sound, but I thought it was a type
> of emulated DOS interface.

You can start a DOS game from it, but it will be no different from
double clicking the file in Explorer or running it from the start
menu. The command prompt offers no extra DOS support beyond what's
there in the rest of Windows. I still find it a handy tool sometimes,
also for some Windows programs, but basically the command prompt is
nothing to do with DOS.

Rikard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure (More info?)

Jenny100 wrote:
>> The .NET code is newer than the Windows native code, and written in an era
>> when Microsoft have actually started thinking about security. So the .NET
>> code is probably much better written than most Windows codes.
>
>
> Would that matter, considering that Windows is running underneath it?
> Or is it circumventing Windows somehow and maintaining autonomy?

It's kind of like putting guard rails around the more dangerous bits of
Windows. Anything a .NET program tries to do has to be done through the
..NET virtual machine, which in turn only uses a subset of the underlying
Windows functions. The idea is that the subset is well tested and safer
than full featured Windows.

> What would a virus written in .NET be capable of?

Anything, like any virus. A .NET program should be a lot tougher to infect,
however, than a regular Windows program.
--
David Tanguay http://www.sentex.ca/~datanguayh/
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure (More info?)

Jenny100 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:N0K5e.3240$lP1.1298
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> So eventually you should be able to run games like Divided without
> using Windows? Will Mono be able to fake things like DirectX 9
> and Windows Media Player 9?

Not yet, and perhaps never. Right now, Windows Media player runs on the
Windows machine, not as a .NET application. I have some doubts that this
would ever change. DirectX is an interface that allows fairly direct
access to your video/audio devices -- I don't think it is subsumed under
the .NET virtual machine.

So Divided is unlikely to be a candidate for running on Mono in the near
future.

--
Murray Peterson
Email: murray.spamtrap2@shaw.ca
URL: http://members.shaw.ca/murraypeterson/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure (More info?)

David Adrien Tanguay wrote in news:4257fece$1@news.sentex.net:

> Depends on your perspective. For the program running, DOSBox looks
> like an old 396 running DOS with a SoundBlaster and a VESA
> compliant graphics card. So the program knows nothing about
> Windows, it thinks it's talking to DOS. I.e., DOSBox emulates a
> DOS box, and is called an emulator. (I think DOSBox runs on Linux,
> too.)

Yes, but not only Linux (and BeOS). Since it emulates all the hardware
it even runs on MacOS X, so you don't even need a PC to run your old
games. The game still thinks it's running on that 386 with a
soundblaster. It knows nothing of the world outside DosBox. (Think of
it as an old-computer simulator, if you will.)

Rikard

 

[Lynne]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure (More info?)

OT but as an FYI - I have WinXP home ed. installed on this computer and
until I downloaded Microsoft.NET in order to play Divided, I did not have to
click on a username (I'm the only user on this computer) when loading XP.
But, as I eventually found out, installing MS.NET resulted in my having to
click on my username before XP would finish loading. Quite irritating.
Should anyone else run into this, here's a link to the fix
http://windowsxp.mvps.org/Autologon.htm

Lynne

"B.C." <my@email.adres.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:422e2214$0$15167$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> It was difficult!!
> It was fun!
> It was myst/riven/zork nemesis like!
> Play it........enjoy it.
>
> http://www.jeroenstout.net/divided/index.htm
>
> Barbara
>
>