VOGONS

Common searches


Using DOSBox on Windows 10 but need printed output..

Topic actions

  • This topic is locked. You cannot reply or edit posts.

Reply 20 of 36, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

I still see no prove that DOSBox developers intentionally crippled DOSBox. The goal of the developers is to not add unneeded junk. No Dos program needs LFN.

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox
DOSBox SVN snapshot for macOS (10.4-11.x ppc/intel 32/64bit) notarized for gatekeeper

Reply 21 of 36, by koverhbarc

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

The word 'crippled' may be debatable, but yes, they choose not to add certain features to DOSBox that are not needed to run old DOS games. As far as I know, there is no legal reason why you can't immediately incorporate the features from the LFN build into the main branch, and doing so would cause no problems whatsoever.

It's easy enough to find a list of DOS programs that can use or work with LFNs, and certainly DJGPP allows it automatically if you have the LFN API and I have used that feature in several ways. Not having those names show up at the command prompt is a major annoyance.

Reply 22 of 36, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

crippled means something was made to not work anymore, right? So the term crippled is not debatable, as DOSBox never had LFN support.

Adding stuff just because you can adds overhead and more things that can break. Adding stuff like LFN support that no one *really* needs is just another of those things. That's why there are forks that add such things and you can just use those. Making a stink about it and falsely claiming DOSBox has been intentionally crippled is probably not helping and will just always make the devs remember you as "that guy".

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox
DOSBox SVN snapshot for macOS (10.4-11.x ppc/intel 32/64bit) notarized for gatekeeper

Reply 23 of 36, by JosSchaars

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

A list of LFN aware programs for DOS can be found at: http://www.cn-dos.net/msdos71/doslfns.htm.

It’s incomplete, one program should certainly be added: Microsoft MSAV antivirus.
Those programs don’t require LFN, but can make use of them.

The $64,000 question: You would start DOSBox, then one of these programs to … ?
Or stay at the command prompt of DOSBox to … ?
You know for instance Windows has its own command prompt? There’s no logic behind “Not having those names show up at the command prompt is a major annoyance.”.

Reply 24 of 36, by DosFreak

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

"As far as I know, there is no legal reason why you can't immediately incorporate the features from the LFN build into the main branch, and doing so would cause no problems whatsoever."

Please don't comment on something you don't know anything about. Search the forums on this it's been discussed before.

Official DOSBox supports LFN just fine from a OS booted from a HD image. You'll have to be content with that. If not then move on to some other solution.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Make your games work offline

Reply 26 of 36, by Tim036

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I just found this :-
ZDrive

When DOSBox loads it automatically creates a Virtual Internal Drive called Z: which contains various utilities that make a reasonable approximation of a fully setup DOS Compatible environment. This drive is automatically inserted to the front of the PATH and cannot be modified. This Z: Drive can be largely hidden with some creative modifications to the AUTOEXEC.BAT for a more complete emulation of MS-DOS.

You can find the following files in Z: drive.

COMMAND.COM
AUTOEXEC.BAT
INTRO.COM
KEYB.COM
IMGMOUNT.COM
BOOT.COM
RESCAN.COM
LOADFIX.COM
MEM.COM
MOUNT.COM
MIXER.COM
CONFIG.COM

end quote

I post back if I can get it to work

Reply 27 of 36, by Tim036

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Having poked about a bit it looks like the Windows 10 OS is a bit hostile to modification but the Linux version it a lot easier to 'tune'. Loads of 'sensible' ways forward.

However my thoughts were that at the 'Z' prompt it would be entirely reasonable to have an elegant way to get the application of choice to load at a single command like P and enter key.

Bat files are very effective! Or am I just a bit too optimistic ?

A puzzled,

Tim

Reply 28 of 36, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

You cannot easily do this directly but through the autoexec section of dosbox config you can add a folder with all your files and batches as drive Y and add it to the PATH.
This way you don't need to modify Dosbox and you can do it with every version within much of a hassle (only the config file might change)

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox
DOSBox SVN snapshot for macOS (10.4-11.x ppc/intel 32/64bit) notarized for gatekeeper

Reply 30 of 36, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

You set it in the [autoexec] section of the config and it doesn’t matter on which OS you are, be it Windows, Linux or OSX. It might have to look like this:

[autoexec]
mount y path-to-the-batches
PATH=Y:\;Z:\;

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox
DOSBox SVN snapshot for macOS (10.4-11.x ppc/intel 32/64bit) notarized for gatekeeper

Reply 32 of 36, by koverhbarc

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
JosSchaars wrote:
A list of LFN aware programs for DOS can be found at: http://www.cn-dos.net/msdos71/doslfns.htm. […]
Show full quote

A list of LFN aware programs for DOS can be found at: http://www.cn-dos.net/msdos71/doslfns.htm.

It’s incomplete, one program should certainly be added: Microsoft MSAV antivirus.
Those programs don’t require LFN, but can make use of them.

The $64,000 question: You would start DOSBox, then one of these programs to … ?
Or stay at the command prompt of DOSBox to … ?

The answer is another question: Why not? There are certainly some of those that I could imagine running in DOSBox.

From a user's perspective, the point of DOSBox is to provide DOS for computers too new to run DOS or have good DOS support in Windows. And, too, the newer systems don't allow fullscreen for the built-in command prompt, which makes it preferable to stay in DOSBox.

There are at least two reasons (that I've encountered) for having LFN even for the narrow purpose of playing DOS games:

- Storing games in long-named subdirectories: if you want to organise your large game collection, you'll probably want to put each in a recognisably-named directory. Everyone with DOS experience should know how hard it is to come up with many 8-character names that will be immediately recognisable after you've forgotten creating them.

- Recording and playback of long-named demos with Doom source ports. Even under pure DOS, this can be done with DOSLFN. However, that doesn't work in DOSBox.

I said 'as far as I know' for good reason - I can't know for sure. But the LFN build seems to run exactly like the non-LFN build for me, and hasn't had any problems, so that's what I know.

Reply 33 of 36, by collector

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

There are so any ways to manage a large collection of games without needing to resort navigating to all of the directories via DOSBox. If you don't want to do it on your own just use a frontend. However, in the end if you can't be bothered and you still really want it, continue using your LFN build or use vDos.

The Sierra Help Pages -- New Sierra Game Installers -- Sierra Game Patches -- New Non-Sierra Game Installers

Reply 34 of 36, by JosSchaars

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
koverhbarc wrote:

There are certainly some of those that I could imagine running in DOSBox..

I can’t, what programs, in what universe, to what use?

And, too, the newer systems don't allow fullscreen for the built-in command prompt, which makes it preferable to stay in DOSBox.

Stay in DOSBox? You first have to start it, mount drives… To get a command prompt in full screen. Still, to do what, why full screen? The Windows command prompt can also made full screen if you ignore the title bar.

Reply 35 of 36, by koverhbarc

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I don't see any reason for me to go into detail about exactly what I do or might do in DOS, nor do I think those considerations should be very relevant. The fact is, current versions of Windows are incomplete without the ability to run DOS programs; DOSBox is the most widely used tool to provide that ability, and LFN support is certainly part of that ability given that previous versions of Windows did support it. As long as it is possible and safe (well, as safe as it was in real DOS), anything that could be done at a real (e.g. Win98 or XP) DOS prompt is a candidate to be done in DOSBox. I can't see any real objection to this line of reasoning.

As I've mentioned I have DOSBox automatically mount all my drives 'see-through', so it's not harder to launch than a native command prompt. Although as long as I use XP I seldom need to, I'm aware that it is a necessity for 64-bit Windows.

Reply 36 of 36, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

Problem seems to be that not many others see your reasons as relevant...

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox
DOSBox SVN snapshot for macOS (10.4-11.x ppc/intel 32/64bit) notarized for gatekeeper