DosBox? Simple Solution or Last Resort?

Post by **Dogbreath** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:32 pm

Script kiddies of DOS? Well I'll be buggered...

Actually DOSbox seems to be the best option for XP, but does anyone else here find Wally's quick-draw "DOSBOX!!!!" replies without even bothering to figure out the problem a little annoying? DOSbox isn't a silver bullet and it's a pain in the ass to get running. Is actually rather clumsy and difficult to run once it is, and not to mention it messes many games up and doesn't run them at their full potential, among other vices. I'd much rather see it being used as a last resort for impossible situations than being used for every single problem posted here that could've just as easily been solved by a little technical ingenuity.

Please, please, please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to establish rules for helping people or saying don't do whatever is necessary to get old games running. I'm just unloading something that's been bothering me for a while.

This probably isn't the right topic for it, so if JTA wants to move it somewhere or start a thread about it then I wouldn't really care that much.

Post by **Wally** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:35 pm

well i am sorry DB, but i do point out to people that dosbox has a set of instructions avaliable at getting sound to work in XP.

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:46 pm

The thing about Dosbox, DB, is that more and more I find it, while often being the last resort, is simply the best solution. Games that are a real biotch to get running run under it with minimal effort (generally), and once you get used to the interface (which DOES take a while) it's pretty fast and easy. Sometimes you have to mess with clock speed, but you had to do that with MoSlow. It just replaces so much that I now find it to be worth checking DosBox first, rather than last.

The worst thing about Dosbox is choppiness. Sometimes games seem to stutter, if that makes any sense.

By the way, I split the topic for two reasons:
1: It fits better here.
2: To show, that, yes, I AM actually paying attention.

Amro · Post by **Amro** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:24 pm

Well, dosbox could be more convenient (like being able to browse a HD instead of mounting each dir seperately) but it's just fine. All you gotta do is run it, mount the directory, then run the game. You only gotta do it once to remember it, so it DOESN'T take that much time to get used to.

Even if it dosn't run games that well, it's better then nothing (which gives you in most cases nothing). I agree with JTA about checking w/ it first.

Post by **emmzee** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:20 pm

One reason I like DOSBox is that sometimes I want to play games in a window ... and it makes it easy to do so. Also, since my HD is formatted NTFS (stupid me, I didn't know back then!) its not possible for me to just make a boot disk.

DOSBox generally an easy, no work solution for a huge and growing number of DOS games ... oh yea about the studdering problem, always try to play with the CPU cycles ... try increasing them, or if that doesn't work, try decreasing them .... doesn't always work but its worth a shot ...

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Sat May 01, 2004 1:15 am

I agree with wally's "DOSBOX!" replies to be nothing but postcount+1. If he keeps it up, i'll just start deleting them.

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Sat May 01, 2004 10:16 am

Yeah, CPU cycles are better than frame skip. Just, sometimes, even with them high enough to run the game, it seems to skip or something, not a ton, but just a little bit. Better than games with MoSlo, though.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Sat May 01, 2004 12:57 pm

Yeah, I know DOSbox has good features as well (I use it for several games) and I don't have anything against it. However, there are many games that aren't supported by dosbox and I have this belief that it's better to run a game on the original system rather than use an emulator-which is may be a flawed logic.

There's also the point that making a guest fiddle around with DOSbox for an hour when he has a, say, memory error problem that could otherwise be fixed in 30 seconds is a bit redundent. Not everyone *wants* all the special features and extras that DOSbox comes with-they just want the game running normally.

Anyhow, I'll see to adding dosbox to the "read this before posting!" thread in get games to work. I do think it's an excellent option for those with incompatible XPs or macs. (Does dosbox support Apple yet?)

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Sat May 01, 2004 1:59 pm

I doubt it, but it's entirely possible.

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Sat May 01, 2004 2:56 pm

Sometimes I wonder why i'm here.... I don't even play dosgames anymore.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Sat May 01, 2004 3:54 pm

Because this board is run by very, very sexy people?

I dunno, you probably just need to get back into the habit (which you will over the summer)... I haven't had that much time for gaming either, thanks to 11th grade being a bitch.

Interon · Post by **Interon** » Sat May 01, 2004 6:47 pm

DOSBox is very counter-intuitive, not meant for newbies. Yeah we should try simpler solutions for XP failed games, only use DOSBox when all else fails.

Yeah, DB is a dandy piece of software but it's not the be all end all.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Sun May 02, 2004 9:30 pm

Wally*Won_Kenobie wrote:Emm drivers are complex things..
You may have to use the program Dosbox for it..

Or try to config your conventional Memory

JMS wrote:Right-click on game.exe, click Properties, click the Memory tab, under Expanded (EMS) Memory, click and select 4096.

Case in point. Why would dosbox be better than spending 10 seconds solving the problem?

Post by **Wally** » Sun May 02, 2004 9:42 pm

Kazer0 wrote:I agree with wally's "DOSBOX!" replies to be nothing but postcount+1. If he keeps it up, i'll just start deleting them.

well they have a point dotn they?

Kazer- I put them there because i am sick of saying gazillions of things..

Sometimes i actually refer to the other document which i will from now on

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Sun May 02, 2004 10:56 pm

Wally*Won_Kenobie wrote:Kazer- I put them there because i am sick of saying gazillions of things..

Then don't say anything at all.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Mon May 03, 2004 6:34 pm

Kazer- I put them there because i am sick of saying gazillions of things..

Well then, Wally, if you're too busy or sick to post anything truly helpful why post at all?

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Mon May 03, 2004 9:12 pm

Hence what I just said.

Interon · Post by **Interon** » Mon May 03, 2004 9:17 pm

Maybe he's trying to help since some people don't know of DOSBox's existence. Also, for some games, that's probably the only way in the Windows XP environment for certain games to work.

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Mon May 03, 2004 9:34 pm

For now on, henceforth, every repliy to anyone of jays posts shall end or start with the work dosbox, so that someone reading his posts will be formed of its existance. Dosbox.

Post by **Wally** » Mon May 03, 2004 9:40 pm

Maybe he's trying to help since some people don't know of DOSBox's existence. Also, for some games, that's probably the only way in the Windows XP environment for certain games to work.

True

For now on, henceforth, every repliy to anyone of jays posts shall end or start with the work dosbox, so that someone reading his posts will be formed of its existance. Dosbox.

For once i have to admit it kazer0 you are quite arrogant....

Dosbox.