Glossary
——————————————————————————
Roland MT-32 / CM-32L: One of the most outstanding and furthest recognized DOS sound cards ever made. Designed in 1987 by Roland Corporation with production starting in 1988 and manufactured until just before the Mid-90's, the Roland MT-32's Capabilities can be described as “vastly different from most basic sound cards at the time,” such as the Adlib sound Card and the built in beepers in Tandy / IBM PCs.

Adlib Card: A low cost, but highly efficient and noteworthy standpoint in gaming sound/music. Although it had a very “plastic, synthesized sound” one might say, it was “state-of-the-art” and far ahead of it's time. Designed and released in 1987 by the Canadian company, Ad Lib Incorporated, this sound card (using Yamaha's YM3812 FM Synthesis Chip) found it's way into thousands of DOS games and programs and is a name known by almost any retro DOS gamer.

Sound Blaster: A card almost identical to the Adlib yet with a few extra perks and details here and there, with the added capability of being able to playback 8-Bit PCM Audio, The Sound Blaster card, designed by Creative Labs in 1989 and released in 1990 was an outstanding card for it's time. Sound Blaster ended up being Adlib's “silent murderer” and lived on while Adlib Inc. filed for bankruptcy around 1992 and officially closed their doors for good. Sound Blaster cards, in fact, still exist today, and lead the way for gamers worldwide.

Tandy 3-Voice / PCjr Audio / PC Speaker: Simply two different flavors of beeper. Both were built into their native PCs, with the Tandy 3-Voice / PCjr Audio having three independent voices and the IBM PC Speaker having only one.

——————————————————————————-
Police Quest II Music Card Comparison
——————————————————————————-
I played around with Police Quest II in native DOS with various sound cards to get an idea as far as what they sound like and how they preform, as well as to project an honest but humble opinion using what I have observed.

WARNING: If you object to my opinions, I would kindly ask that you please do so in a respectable manner. My rule is, If you wouldn't say it to my (or someone else's) face, don't post it on my page/pages. If you find an error, please report it in an also respectable manner so it can be fixed. Thank you.

——————————————————————————-

Roland MT-32/CM-32L: Everyone knows the legendary sound of the MT-32 and the CM-32L. Excellent music, which is what the device was originally meant for, although it's cost ($550.00 if bought from Sierra On-Line, around $800+ price range elsewhere) was a bit overpriced for the time. Even though it was over the head of any common-folk gamer at the time, it was so outstanding, It actually reminds me of that cool theme music from a late 1980's cop show. Rating: 5.0/5.0

Sound Blaster: Nearly identical to the Adlib card, just with improved FM Synthesis and the ability to play sound in Stereo. Although, I won't give this too much more than I gave Adlib, just to be fair. Rating: 3.7/5.0

Adlib Card: Has a very plastic sound. Harsh sounding, however it would be ideal for someone who is looking for a low cost device that can produce some decent music and non-PCM sounds, not to mention that the Adlib was already ahead of it's time. Only thing I can give a valid complaint to is that it only plays sound in Mono, which at the time Sound Blaster and other cards had already achieved Stereo Sound. Rating: 3.5/5.0


Tandy 3-Voice/PCjr Audio: I understand that basically I'm mentioning the (relatively) same thing as the PC Speaker yet slightly improved, but I just had to give this one a go. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but as far as I'm concerned, I think we can safely say that it at least sounds better than the beeper and it's relatively close to the Adlib, just with only three voices that can be played at once. I think this one deserves one step up from the PC speaker, at least. It's not too shabby, one might say. Rating: 2.1/5.0

PC Speaker: I still think it was quite stupid of me to even mention the IBM PC Speaker (as it's almost barely a sound device) but if this game was a tad older then I would have to give it a better rating based on how well the beeper handled the music. As far as I'm concerned, in this game the PC Speaker handles O.K, but I've heard better from one of them beepers. (Secret of Monkey Island, LOOM) Rating: 1.5/5.0

I've heard clips of the MT-32 on YouTube. It's a beautiful sounding card for it's time. :3 The Gravis Ultrasound sounds fine as well, and you could load any compatible samples onto it. Great to use in DOSBox.

I think I might've played games such as DOOM and Tyrian with something along the lines of an Adlib. Win95 didn't have software MIDI synthesizing like XP and later versions do, did it?

technoguyx wrote:

I've heard clips of the MT-32 on YouTube. It's a beautiful sounding card for it's time. :3 The Gravis Ultrasound sounds fine as well, and you could load any compatible samples onto it. Great to use in DOSBox.

I think I might've played games such as DOOM and Tyrian with something along the lines of an Adlib. Win95 didn't have software MIDI synthesizing like XP and later versions do, did it?

Depending on which kind of PC you had, yes and no. Manufacturers generally decide on their own what kind of hardware/software they want in their computers, same as today. Some PCs had software synth, others had hardware synth. For example Sceptre might use Roland SS while IBM might use an Adlib card.

We apparently had a Presario 2200; and before that we had some DOS PC, can't remember the brand nor what it sounded like since I was very small at the time. No mention of a dedicated MIDI sound card, so Win95 handled the MIDI, most certainly.

Interesting. Let me know if you have any more questions or want to share anything else

Oh no you weren't. What do you think windows boots from? Basically, the last version of DOS.

Richard2000 wrote:

Oh no you weren't. What do you think windows boots from? Basically, the last version of DOS.

Not since the Windows 9x kernel was phased out.

Flamekebab wrote:

Richard2000 wrote:

Oh no you weren't. What do you think windows boots from? Basically, the last version of DOS.

Not since the Windows 9x kernel was phased out.

Sure, but I'm not talking about native DOS, I'm talking about DOS as a boot.

Here's what Microsoft will say in about twenty years:
“We are sad to say that MS-DOS is ending it's years of service, and we are replacing it with a new boot technology called ‘*’.
We deeply apologize to those who loved DOS, DOS will rest in peace.

MS-DOS
1981-2044”

*Whatever they decide to call it

Richard2000 wrote:

Sure, but I'm not talking about native DOS, I'm talking about DOS as a boot.

What are you talking about? You're acting like DOS is a black screen with white text, not an OS.

Windows boots from the NT Loader, not DOS.

Flamekebab wrote:

Richard2000 wrote:

Sure, but I'm not talking about native DOS, I'm talking about DOS as a boot.

What are you talking about? You're acting like DOS is a black screen with white text, not an OS.

Windows boots from the NT Loader, not DOS.

Windows Vista and above use BOOTMGR, not NT Loader.

nathanprocks wrote:

Flamekebab wrote:

Richard2000 wrote:

Sure, but I'm not talking about native DOS, I'm talking about DOS as a boot.

What are you talking about? You're acting like DOS is a black screen with white text, not an OS.

Windows boots from the NT Loader, not DOS.

Windows Vista and above use BOOTMGR, not NT Loader.

TIL. Cheers, nathanprocks. My point still stands though - Windows boots from NTLDR or BOOTMGR, not DOS.

nathanprocks wrote:

Flamekebab wrote:

Richard2000 wrote:

Sure, but I'm not talking about native DOS, I'm talking about DOS as a boot.

What are you talking about? You're acting like DOS is a black screen with white text, not an OS.

Windows boots from the NT Loader, not DOS.

Windows Vista and above use BOOTMGR, not NT Loader.

Actually, What I'm referring to is what allows the OS to boot. Without DOS, what is there to boot? Whether the NT kernel exists or not, in this case, DOS IS a black screen with white text. It really does diddly squat for Vista and so on, aside from allowing it to boot. What do you think windows originally ran on? DOS. What does it still run over? Well, a very layman version of DOS, called the NT kernel, which is what you are referring to. Really, DOS has always been there.

You don't seem to appreciate what DOS is. It's not just white text on a black screen. That's just how computers look without a GUI of any kind. If we're going just by visual description then my Raspberry Pi is running DOS before OpenELEC fully boots up. That's obviously not the case though.

When a PC starts up it fires up a bootloader. That then hands over to a second stage bootloader like GRUB or NTLDR which then starts the operating system proper (e.g. Windows or Linux).

DOS is an operating system that a second stage bootloader would start. It used to be part of Windows in the old Windows 9x days. These days that's not the case though. DOS isn't there any more. It does “diddly squat” for Vista just like it does “diddly squat” for my morning toast. In both cases because it's neither a tasty spread, nor actually present.

Hopefully you can now understand the problem with this:

Richard2000 wrote:

Actually, What I'm referring to is what allows the OS to boot. Without DOS, what is there to boot?

You're talking about the bootloader, not DOS.

Richard2000 wrote:

What do you think windows originally ran on? DOS.

For a moment you're right on the money:

Microsoft Windows was first released in 1985 as an add-on to MS-DOS. Because of its dependence on another operating system, initial releases of Windows, prior to Windows 95, were considered an operating environment (not to be confused with an operating system).

But then you end up completely off track:

Richard2000 wrote:

What does it still run over? Well, a very layman version of DOS, called the NT kernel, which is what you are referring to. Really, DOS has always been there.

Modern versions of Windows don't run on DOS. The NT Kernel isn't DOS at all - DOS has its own kernel (on account of being an operating system in and of itself). The Simple English version of Wikipedia is handy here (as the full article is more than a bit heavy!):

A kernel is the central part of an operating system.

Hopefully that clears things up a little. Also, I would like some toast.

Flamekebab wrote:

You don't seem to appreciate what DOS is. It's not just white text on a black screen. That's just how computers look without a GUI of any kind. If we're going just by visual description then my Raspberry Pi is running DOS before OpenELEC fully boots up. That's obviously not the case though.

When a PC starts up it fires up a bootloader. That then hands over to a second stage bootloader like GRUB or NTLDR which then starts the operating system proper (e.g. Windows or Linux).

DOS is an operating system that a second stage bootloader would start. It used to be part of Windows in the old Windows 9x days. These days that's not the case though. DOS isn't there any more. It does “diddly squat” for Vista just like it does “diddly squat” for my morning toast. In both cases because it's neither a tasty spread, nor actually present.

Hopefully you can now understand the problem with this:

Richard2000 wrote:

Actually, What I'm referring to is what allows the OS to boot. Without DOS, what is there to boot?

You're talking about the bootloader, not DOS.

Richard2000 wrote:

What do you think windows originally ran on? DOS.

For a moment you're right on the money:

Microsoft Windows was first released in 1985 as an add-on to MS-DOS. Because of its dependence on another operating system, initial releases of Windows, prior to Windows 95, were considered an operating environment (not to be confused with an operating system).

But then you end up completely off track:

Richard2000 wrote:

What does it still run over? Well, a very layman version of DOS, called the NT kernel, which is what you are referring to. Really, DOS has always been there.

Modern versions of Windows don't run on DOS. The NT Kernel isn't DOS at all - DOS has its own kernel (on account of being an operating system in and of itself). The Simple English version of Wikipedia is handy here (as the full article is more than a bit heavy!):

A kernel is the central part of an operating system.

Hopefully that clears things up a little. Also, I would like some toast.

Yes, sure, I can agree and you indeed make a very good point.