Full screen by default? Your kidding right? With all the complaints of people having full screen problems? Besides who plays DosBox full screen? Honestly.
The rest of your suggestions are solved by using a frontend......OS specific frontends are able to better serve those OS's they are designed for.
wrote:Its like, you are offering a defective car and you focus on after-sales service. Instead, you should offer a user friendly and reliable car which eliminates after-sales service (or minimizes it).
but wait... that won't force users to read the README right? sorry my bad.. forget about my suggestions...
That is a pretty p*ss poor analogy. You are demanding that DOSBox be a finished complete product. It is still under development. If anything it is more analogous to an engine, no the whole car. Should the developers of an experimental engine put a premium on newbie friendliness? You hint that DOSBox is defective because it doesn't also wipe the noses of newbies that are too lazy to read a small README.
wrote:Should the developers of an experimental engine put a premium on newbie friendliness? You hint that DOSBox is defective because it doesn't also wipe the noses of newbies that are too lazy to read a small README.
premium? we are talking about basic user friendliness here! we didn't ask for a graphical GUI with bells and whisles!! we asked for a stupid default config!!! jesus oh mighty lord!!!!!!
--
sehh
Dammn, IE...hit the wrong button before....(so I deleted your post...sorry!)
Who doesn't run fullscreen?
Me most of the time......
You mean you have a monitor of XYZ inches and you don't want to use them all??
No. I have a 21" Sony CRT and I like to multitask.......for some games I do use fullscreen but for most simply games I play them in a window.
If there are compaints of full-screen related problems you should fix them, instead of writting a README about it.
Easier said than done. We are talking about cross-compatibility between mutliple platforms here. Besides, pretty much all emulators start in a window. The only reason MS-DOS started full screen originally...was because that's all there was! DosBox is so much more than simple MS-DOS.
Your suggestion to use a front-end is also void. If you buy a car, you don't buy a tow truck along with it for the occasion that your car breaks down. The point is to have a car thats reliable enough so that it doesn't need a tow truck. Thus, if you make dosbox user friendly then we won't need a frontend!
I hate computer->car analogies. Jeez. Your comparing reliability to user-friendliness? You want to make DosBox "user-friendly"? WTF is user-friendly anyway? Is Windows XP User-friendly? NO. It's not. I find Linux much more "user-friendly" compared to XP for me. For the common user I find Windows 2000 much more "user-friendly" than Windows XP and heck for some tasks I find MS-DOS more user-friendly than Windows 95!
I think you understand what people have been talking about for 6 pages, but you are avoiding the subject.
It seems to me that you want DosBox to fit a specific role for a specific set of users when DosBox is meant for all platforms and all kinds of users. Obviously a solution that fits all users will be best but it is not a simple solutions which is why this thread exists.....
wrote:Who doesn't run fullscreen?
Me most of the time......
I believe we have another phpBB/Gaim situation here, if the developers don't like something, then its not going to happen, no matter how many users request a feature. End of story.
wrote:wrote:Who doesn't run fullscreen?
Me most of the time......
I believe we have another phpBB/Gaim situation here, if the developers don't like something, then its not going to happen, no matter how many users request a feature. End of story.
I'm not a dev......
But I can say after moderating these forums and browsing the old DosBox sourceforge forums since DosBox was initially released that Qbix/Harekiet will only do what they want to do when it comes to DosBox. Primarily that means focusing ONLY on DOS game compatibility with DosBox. If there is enough of an incentive to put something in DosBox that the DosBox userbase wants then Qbix/Harekiet will include it if possible and if it doesn't break anything.....but again only if it provides a usefull purpose for a large number of DosBox users.
PHP/Gaim are wonderful projects, I don't know any of the devs but if they are as devoted to their projects as the DosBox devs are then no wonder their products are as good as they are.
I really don't see a point in increasing the default DosBox user-friendliness. (except for a few minor things). What purpose would that serve?
People who have never used DOS will almost certainly be happy using a frontend. If they want to learn the CLI then it will always be there.
People who are highly experienced with DOS will do their own thing (Use the CLI or a GUI), they may have a few minor issues but again those can be fixed or included if there is a reason.
Putting some half-assed solution into DosBox just to service a user-base that wouldn't use it isn't a very good idea.
wrote:wrote:Who doesn't run fullscreen?
Me most of the time......
I believe we have another phpBB/Gaim situation here, if the developers don't like something, then its not going to happen, no matter how many users request a feature. End of story.
Yes, because the devs really should just scramble to fufill the wishes of a small handful of posters who have an even larger handful telling them they disagree. 🤣
seh wrote:
No my friend, a user should be just a user: […]
No my friend, a user should be just a user:
you buy a car...
you unlock the car
get in
start the car
you drive the car...get it? no reading... no forums...
Ok, tell you what... you give me the $15,000+ you'd spend on a car and I will give you a 'read-free' setup of DosBox, custom tailored to your every reasonable whim.
The fact is, you aren't a 'user' of DosBox.... you are a tester. The version number of the latest official release should give you a clue: v0.63.
Seems to me that too many people are too spoiled by having everything handed to them nowadays.
You want to compare this to a car? Ok, how about this: This is an emulator to get old games running on modern operating systems. Compare it to an older car, say, an old crank-start car. If you think you can just get in, start it and drive it, you are sadly mistaken. To begin with, you couldn't even start it without reading the manual, unless somebody previously showed you how (and where) to operate the crank. And woe is you if you didn't know not to have the car in gear when you attempted it.
Again, simply give me the $15,000+ you would spend on a car, and I'll give you a DosBox setup that is as easy to use as the car your mommy bought you.
Patch61,
hidding behind the old "its free software" slogan is not an excuse to create bad software.
--
sehh
Sehh.... if you think it is 'bad software', then why are you even here?
My point wasn't that it's free, my point was that it isn't finished.
Just because something is beyond some people's comprehension doesn't mean it's bad. Perhaps those people should stick with the XBox instead of DosBox.
But on the subject of free... It boggles my mind that here we have some dedicated people providing us with free tools to do things that we wouldn't normally be able to do, and people are complaining. How in the world can you justify complaining about something that is free?? Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth... sheesh!
Anybody (even you, Sehh) is more than welcome to help make this software more user friendly by writing a front-end that will do exactly what they want. If they can't, they are welcome to hire somebody that can. Or use one of the (free!) existing ones.
Patch61, don't give us that love it or leave it nationalist crap, please.
Not being finished isn't an excuse. Every emulator I've ever used has the same interface in beta as it does in full version. If we let things be without complain, this horrid user experience will continue indefinately.
I think its obvious, like any other emulator already has, dos box needs the following:
1) A pull down menu in windowed mode that tweaks every setting in the conf on the fly. As an experienced user I hate exiting, editing, saving, reopenning. I can change resolutions, cpu usage, sound, etc on the fly in every other software on earth, why not this one?
2) in that pull down menu there should also be a browser that lets you select the folder that will be your drive c. same goes for cd roms and floppies. No more mounting commands.
3) I have no 3. Thats about all the problems. Isn't that easy? What needs to be asked is why are the programmers so stuck in the middeval past of software? Why wasn't this kind of logic in from the beginning? Why does the emulator HAVE TO BE AS BACKWARDS AS THE THING IT EMULATES especially with nearly 20 years hind sight?
I just wanted to add that this is not a noobs vs veterans aurgument. There are no noobs here. Everyone in this thread can use DOSBox to its fullest the way it is. This is an arguement of pure ideology on whether a piece of software should be archaic in its fuctionality or new and streamlined. In effect its Windows vs DOS all over again. DOS lost a long time ago, that's why it needs to be emulated. Remember folks, we're not trying to actually emulate dos, we're trying to emulate the great software that was used on dos.
[quote="James Jose"]1) A pull down menu in windowed mode that tweaks every setting in the conf on the fly. As an experienced user I hate exiting, editing, saving, reopenning. I can change resolutions, cpu usage, sound, etc on the fly in every other software on earth, why not this one?
2) in that pull down menu there should also be a browser that lets you select the folder that will be your drive c. same goes for cd roms and floppies. No more mounting commands.
[quote]
2 doesn't sound like that bad an idea. It doesn't quite fit in with the current design at all though. 1 I don't think would be that hot though. You're emulating a PC here. Somethings like cycles are easy to adjust on the fly. Hardware and memory though are quite a bit more complicated. After all you couldn't change hardware on the fly in a real PC.
Again though, front ends are availible that make setting up the emulator, even for individual gamesa snap with the ease you seem to desire. So I'm inclined to file this under if it's not broke why fix it? As while the original emulator may lack what you desire, you have half a dozen utilities already that offer what you want.
James Jose, what you describe is done by frontends. ALL of it. 100% perfectly. Pull-down menus. Browsing your hard disk for a game folder. Not touching a single keyboard key, all using the mouse.
Please get it: Because of the complexity and perfectionism involved, DOSBox is ONLY meant to be the engine, Frontends are the chassis. sehh, that doesn't make it bad software, it just makes it a bad newbie experience. Usability always depends on the targetted user group.
This will change. Not possibly, not maybe - definitely. Just not now. Version 0.something, remember?
sehh, I can only repeat: you have many easy-to-solve suggestions, you seem to have read a lot of other suggestions (I had a heap of them in here and in other places), why don't you go about, download the free nullsoft installer generator and build an installer that does all these things? No programming needed. Heck, if I was a windows user, I'd have fixed it long ago - and you just complain.
And for those who still don't get that this isn't Freeware, neither it is Democracy, but open source:
I believe we have another phpBB/Gaim situation here, if the developers don't like something, then its not going to happen, no matter how many users request a feature. End of story.
You know, you can request everything you like. Open source doesn't work this way. Why should anyone listen to you? Feel free to return to non-open source programs and regularly clean your box of spyware, or face all the advertising crap. People who write these programs have a monetary gain when they make you happy. We don't gain anything by making you happy.
That may sound harsh, but it boils down to that. Reality isn't that hard: Any decent OSS author is open for suggestions, and if he likes them, that's fine. If he doesn't, you have several choices:
a) live with it, maybe the situation or development focus changes somewhen
b) do it yourself
c) convince him with compelling (to him!) arguments
d) offer him something else as a "bribe" - there's always lots of work in an OSS project
Do you know why I am happy with DOSBox in all regards? Because I got all my wishes using (a)-(d). Note that "complain until the world ends" is NOT an option - it won't get you anywhere.
I think that DOSBox is already great the way it is, it doesn't need to change
If you can't configure and/or read a file (btw I didn't read anything the first time I put DOSBox 😉 ) and type simple commands like 'help' or 'mount' then you shouldn't be using this in the first place. If someone doesn't understand something, he/she/it shouldn't be complaining in the first place. It took me less than two minutes to figure out that I needed to type 'help' and around 10 seconds to read the instructions, it was piece of cake after that. IMO if someone can't do that, he probably doesn't know what an emulator is, so WTH is he fiddling with that software around.
DOSBox IS user-friendly , it's NOT idiot friendly
Patch61, don't give us that love it or leave it nationalist crap, please. […]
Patch61, don't give us that love it or leave it nationalist crap, please.
Not being finished isn't an excuse. Every emulator I've ever used has the same interface in beta as it does in full version. If we let things be without complain, this horrid user experience will continue indefinately.
I think its obvious, like any other emulator already has, dos box needs the following:
1) A pull down menu in windowed mode that tweaks every setting in the conf on the fly. As an experienced user I hate exiting, editing, saving, reopenning. I can change resolutions, cpu usage, sound, etc on the fly in every other software on earth, why not this one?
2) in that pull down menu there should also be a browser that lets you select the folder that will be your drive c. same goes for cd roms and floppies. No more mounting commands.
3) I have no 3. Thats about all the problems. Isn't that easy? What needs to be asked is why are the programmers so stuck in the middeval past of software? Why wasn't this kind of logic in from the beginning? Why does the emulator HAVE TO BE AS BACKWARDS AS THE THING IT EMULATES especially with nearly 20 years hind sight?
1)That's what front-ends are about. But I see you consider yourself an advanced user, so why didn't you figure out how to do it yourself instead of coming here and complaining? By your thinking everyone with a computer is an experienced user, but that's isn't true by far. Come back when you have a clue WTH you're talking about
2)Hand hurts from typing a command? Get a frontend
3)
em·u·late […]
em·u·late
tr.v. em·u·lat·ed, em·u·lat·ing, em·u·lates
To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with.
Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
apparently that;s what DOSBox is doing, and it's doing it at best, that's what an emulator IS
Forgive me for butting in on this thread, but I would just like to add that as a newbie to Dosbox and having used it for about 1 week I have had nothing but success after success. And I would like to thank those of you have have helped by answering my questions.
For a product still under development, Dosbox works brilliantly well.
Thanks!!
Jim
Regurgitating my old DOS BBS from 1996.
The DOSBox docs (and website) should open with a disclaimer: "You are only allowed to download this program if your IQ consists of three digits".
IQ is a joke and is used way too often by ignorant people.
The disclaimer should be:
"You are only allowed to download this program if you read the documentation first."
It is my opinion that before you use anything with which you have no prior experience that you should read the documentation. If you don't want to read the documentation first then don't bother others with your problem.
If you think about it even a pencil requires that you be taught how to use it.....in fact everything in the world around you has to be taught, from speech to vision. DosBox isn't a mouse, it isn't a house, it's an emulator of a complex system. Yes, it can and is simplified but it will NEVER be as easy as some things. That's just the way it is. Deal with it.
If you want an easy to use system that invades your privacy for easier convenience then use Gametap (EDIT ooops called it GameStop...heh). That is the future of almost all digital software used by the mass populace (not counting GPL software here of course). The erosion of rights for the sake of convenience. Yeppe!
Strangely, I think the kind of user who can't clean up their own viruses and regularly needs to get others to do it for them (the majority of computer users) are already in an okay position, assuming there's great enough awareness of the frontends. A friend can set up dosbox+d-fend, and then they can run their games without any trouble. I think there are sort of two different classes of users who could benefit from usability improvements. There are some who may just want to play a favourite classic game or two, and aren't particularly interested in learning about dosbox. They could benefit from freely-available game-specific configurations which specify the target platform to emulate, easier mounting (already solved by physfs?), and I suppose a GUI to allow them to quickly tweak host settings without reading nor having to deal with the conf file. Then there are intermediate/advanced users who could also benefit from some things. Namely, if changes are made which allow users to access and make changes to dosbox's settings more quickly and with less effort, that's an improvement. I know I'd like to make changes in a GUI on the fly while a game's running (mostly I want this when I'm making changes to dosbox's sourcecode..). Most of them are changeable, but there's no interface to access them. Anyway, amongst computer emulators, dosbox is already one of the easier emulators to configure in the first place.. so this 'hatred of dosbox' thing is a little funny. I agree with someone's comment earlier that it's in development for better compatibility, and that the finishing touches will come later.
