Have you looked at vDosPlus?

No ! I'll rush of to Google and check it out.

Many thanks for responding !

: )))

Tim

I've got vDosPlus running, but don't understand it yet = very early days !

I've got it to save files which I can pop onto a memory stick and print ok on another computer....

Very greatly appreciate your help !

: )))

Tim

[Thread moved to DOSBox General Section]

Is there a beginners Guide to getting started on vDosPlus ?
Greatly appreciate the support I've received on this Forum !

: )))

Tim

You need to contact the vdosplus author. It is not supported in this forum.

Many thanks for responding.
I'll follow your suggestion.

: )))

Tim

Tim036 wrote:

Is there a beginners Guide to getting started on vDosPlus ?

I understand it functions basically the same as DOSBox. If so, you can use the 60 Seconds Guide:
60 seconds guide to getting your game to run in DOSBox

Many many thanks ! I've got it installed AOK

on another matter I read somewhere that DOsbox cannot reliably support Databases. I've got Portex (uk filofax type database circa mid 1990's to 2004)) running a treat ! (so far) if anyone has an interest you would be very welcome to contact me.

BTW its outstanding feature on my PC is that the results of a 'search' is displayed before I've got my finger off the 'Enter' key !. My life time ambition has finally been met ! *LOL*

: )))

Tim

Tim036 wrote:

I read somewhere that DOsbox cannot reliably support Databases.

DOSBox is not intended for running mission-critical business software. While it may appear to be capable of doing so, you do so at your own risk. (The vDosPlus developers have more enthusiasm for running non-gaming software.)

Many thanks for responding, I'll follow your recommendatioms once I'ver got used to vDosPlus, maybe in a month or so, My time is very precious at the moment as I have about 3 tigers by the tail right now....! *LOL*

Many thanks again....

: )))

Tim

Jorpho wrote:

Tim036 wrote:

I read somewhere that DOsbox cannot reliably support Databases.

DOSBox is not intended for running mission-critical business software. While it may appear to be capable of doing so, you do so at your own risk. (The vDosPlus developers have more enthusiasm for running non-gaming software.)

In fact DOSBox is intentionally crippled for running non-gaming software. The LFN port fixes a bit of the willful perversity, but not the issue with databases that I also have beard of.

We really should be able to have one emulator that can support everything like a real DOS PC would. And I can see why you'd want to stick with DOS if you use databases; there's probably no Windows database software that's really nice to use. This is definitely true with spreadsheets, but I have doubts about word processors.

And, finally, for printing: the features of DOS-era printers just aren't supported anymore. Print to a file, then print in Windows, if at all possible.

Bull... DOSBox is not intentionally crippled. Don‘t spread lies without backing it up.

koverhbarc wrote:

In fact DOSBox is intentionally crippled for running non-gaming software. The LFN port fixes a bit of the willful perversity, but not the issue with databases that I also have beard of.

We talked about this over here. If DOSBox looks "crippled" to you, then it is because you are using DOSBox in a wildly atypical fashion. It's like saying a desktop PC is "intentionally crippled" because you have to plug it into a wall outlet.

We really should be able to have one emulator that can support everything like a real DOS PC would.

That's what things like VMware or PCem are for.

And I can see why you'd want to stick with DOS if you use databases; there's probably no Windows database software that's really nice to use. This is definitely true with spreadsheets, but I have doubts about word processors.

You don't think anyone in the last twenty years has ever once managed to come up with "Windows database software that's really nice to use" ? People run their old DOS database programs because they tend to be heavily customized and it would be inconvenient to recreate them in Windows. I have no idea what you mean about spreadsheets.

And, finally, for printing: the features of DOS-era printers just aren't supported anymore.

That's what these special builds of DOSBox are for.

Jorpho wrote:

And, finally, for printing: the features of DOS-era printers just aren't supported anymore.

That's what these special builds of DOSBox are for.

Or this embarrassingly clumsy kludge:

Printing & clipboard-exchange - kludgy workaround for DOSBox under Windows (new link)

That post links to the details (in a closed thread), here:

Printing & clipboard-exchange - kludgy workaround for DOSBox under Windows

If the LFN support hype is mentioned, you can bet it’s no actual user of DOS programs. Fixated at the command prompt, DIR this, DIR that, complaining about missing LFN’s (of non-DOS files). LFN support has already been questioned for gaming, it’s as useless for non-gaming. LFN able programs are mostly utilities w/o any practical use nowadays.

Database programs should function properly in DOSBox. You only can’t use them in a multiuser setting. If more than one instance of such program is running, the database files will in time get corrupted. But if you are a single user: No problem.

DOS database programs are still useful, else they simply wouldn’t have survived (like crappy games didn’t?). Porting those programs to a modern OS is often no option, not just because of the costs (10’s or even 100’s of thousand dollars). Many porting projects stranded because those fancy new programs with lots of bells and whistles couldn’t deliver. DOS database programming (text mode) was all about functionality, in modern OS’s seemingly mostly about looks.

Using databases is a another ballgame than using a complex program manipulating data stored in databases. For just maintaining a database, there are lots of modern options.

What would the features of DOS-era printers be, besides carbon copy of dot matrix printers?

JosSchaars wrote:

If the LFN support hype is mentioned, you can bet it’s no actual user of DOS programs. Fixated at the command prompt, DIR this, DIR that, complaining about missing LFN’s (of non-DOS files).

There's no such thing as a 'non-DOS file', just a file. And it's a matter of fact that modern computers are going to be using LFNs no matter what and that DOS (under DOSBox or otherwise) must coexist with that. I know LFN support isn't that critical; the only reason I talk about it is that there is absolutely no reason not to have it (it can't break anything, by design, except low-level disk access programs which can only run under real DOS anyway); anyone that doesn't need to ever see them can just ignore it.

The 8-character filename limitation has _always_ been frustrating, and there's no point in perpetuating it. There's only one standard for long names in DOS-compatible environments, so we must use it.

Database programs should function properly in DOSBox. You only can’t use them in a multiuser setting. If more than one instance of such program is running, the database files will in time get corrupted.

I had no idea that was even possible. Multiple instances of DOSBox should not be able to access the same file - allowing that would require a different level of sophistication that is justifiably not provided.

DOS database programming (text mode) was all about functionality, in modern OS’s seemingly mostly about looks.

Exactly. Windows application software, for the most part, is slow ugly and burdened with useless features that get in your way. It's no wonder people don't 'upgrade'.

What would the features of DOS-era printers be, besides carbon copy of dot matrix printers?

The standards for the commands sent to the LPT port - entirely obsolete now, but DOS programs relied on them directly or through drivers.

koverhbarc wrote:

What would the features of DOS-era printers be, besides carbon copy of dot matrix printers?

The standards for the commands sent to the LPT port - entirely obsolete now, but DOS programs relied on them directly or through drivers.

Just to be clear: those aren't features of the printers but of the computer and operating system. The commands that DOS applications sent to printers (PCL, PostScript, Epson ESC/P, etc.) are identical to the commands that Windows printer drivers send to printers. The printer doesn't care where the PCL, PostScript, etc., data comes from - DOS, Windows, Linux, OS X, etc. That's why you can send commands from DOS applications to any modern printer under 32-bit Windows by using the NET USE command or any software that redirects printer output from LPT1 to a Windows port.

PS: Yes, there are cheap Windows-only GDI printers, but any printer that costs more than $100 works with OS X, Linux, Android, DOS applications, etc., etc.

koverhbarc wrote:

There's no such thing as a 'non-DOS file', just a file. And it's a matter of fact that modern computers are going to be using LFNs no matter what and that DOS (under DOSBox or otherwise) must coexist with that. I know LFN support isn't that critical; the only reason I talk about it is that there is absolutely no reason not to have it (it can't break anything, by design, except low-level disk access programs which can only run under real DOS anyway); anyone that doesn't need to ever see them can just ignore it.

LFN files are ‘non-DOS files’ in the sense that they were created by a non-DOS program. Which of the few DOS programs, designed to support LFN’s, is supposed to do what with those files? For the DOS programs (gaming as well as non-gaming) actually still in use: Adding an electric connector to a petrol car doesn’t make it a hybrid. Though yes, you can then indeed just ignore that useless gimmick…

I had no idea that was even possible. Multiple instances of DOSBox should not be able to access the same file - allowing that would require a different level of sophistication that is justifiably not provided.

So DOSBox should be crippled and made less compatible with real DOS?