Bug reports in this thread may easily be overlooked.

DosFreak wrote:

Last but not least, the "path" command is "for compatibility only" but it's not a dummy like "attrib". It actually works. Is it on purpose?

What's the question?

The question is why does it work if the help suggests it doesn't?

The question is why does it work if the help suggests it doesn't?

Please point to the exact location where you derive this from, then that passage can be updated.

Good overall performance. Choppy sound with the new 49716 output frequency.

So wait, I can't use batch files to load certain conf files anymore? I have 0.72 set up so it loads three different configs (Windows 3.1, basic DOS system with SB16 enabled, and a configuration test uh, config).

Have you tried it? DOSBox 0.73 adds the option to use the .conf in your profile, it's an option not a requirement.

castle master 1 works! love it!

I tested some games which used to have a working problem with DOSBox 0.72. There are positive and negative answers.I will report my results in the afternoon.But the improvement has a quote of 90% !!!

Congratulations on the new release!

wd wrote:

The question is why does it work if the help suggests it doesn't?

Please point to the exact location where you derive this from, then that passage can be updated.

z:\>help/all
Attrib> Does nothing. Provided for compatibility
Path > Provided for compatibility

the "does nothing" part isn't present.

Before I expose my case, a total kudos on the new release 😀

I just noticed that sound in Windows 3.11 is annoyingly skippy no matter the settings. I however, can't tell whether or not this was introduced in 0.73 or directly inherited from 0.72 because I'm a die-hard DosBox Megabuild fan (it's about the only version that gets the triplebuffering+vsyn right) and I haven't used plain DosBox in ages.

Just letting you know. Hope someone can confirm this.

Qbix wrote:

the "does nothing" part isn't present.

So what does it mean "provided for compatibilty" if it works just like any other command?

We could add "provided for compatibilty" to any other command?

well I added that description as I found it a stupid command in the first place.
IMHO the only way you should alter the path is with the "SET PATH=" command.

lwc wrote:

Qbix wrote:

the "does nothing" part isn't present.

So what does it mean "provided for compatibilty" if it works just like any other command?

Only things that are "required for compatibility" are added to DOSBox and the commands that are added to DOSBox only add the functionality that is needed. So if you look at alot of the DOSBox commands you'll see that some are missing functionality of their MS-DOS counterparts because that functionality is not "required for compatibility".

Qbix wrote:

IMHO the only way you should alter the path is with the "SET PATH=" command.

Why? "set path=c:" seems to give the exact same result with:

1Z:\>path
2PATH=Z:\
3Z:\>path c:\
4Z:\>path
5PATH=c:\

BTW, the link http://projects.freedos.net/keyb/ in README.txt has died back in 2007 (after v0.72 was released). The other links in that specific file are fine, but it's a good policy to check them (or just ask us to) before releases. Also, unlike what the file claims, that URL never simply had a list of KL files.

yes but it is a variable
the whole idea of setting it without using SET is a imho stupid shortcut that never should have added to DOS. Hence I added it for compatibility reasons. not because it makes any sense.

but it's a good policy to check them (or just ask us to) before releases.

Thanks for your community effort of posting this a few days AFTER the
release and not during the two years before.

Also, unlike what the file claims, that URL never simply had a list of KL files.

It had links to the respective download locations, which were bound to change,
so using the toplevel information was quite straightforward.

Hi everybody! I tested some of my games (using DOSBox 0.73) which "traditionally" had problems to work with older versions of DOSBox.I came to the following results:

1) Fable (Telstar,1996) The game now can be installed normaly, as the install process finds the HD and the path to install the game.The installation of the game was impossible in the previous DOSBox versions, because a hard disk could not be found for the installation. Any problems with this game are solved.

2) Ripper (Take 2, 1997) The game installs, and runs normally, no screen/picture problems any more.Using the previous DOSBox versions you had to copy the install folder from the CD to the HD to run the game with a clear picture. Not any more.

3) Are you afraid of the dark-the tale of Orpheo's Curse (1994)
The game installs and runs excellent, you don't have to edit the "afraid.bat" file after the installation to add suporting vesa drivers! The new VESA support of 0.73 worked here well.

4) Atlantis 1-The lost Tales (1997): The game still needs the patch and the following settings: mouse sensitivity 300+, autolock mouse option on, core:dynamic,cycles 30.000+ to run optimally. No progress comparing old DOSBox versions but it is playable.

5)Down in the Dumps (1997): No progress here either. You have to copy the game folder from the cd to your HD, because installing is impossible.
But the game is playable,no problemo after that.

6)Jack Orlando (1997) the DOS version.
That is the big disappointment. In the previous DOSBox versions the game was playable if after the installation you edited the "start.bat" file and put additional VESA Drivers support (univesa). If you didn't do that the game did freeze if you selected "new game", although the intro did run normaly.

Using the new DOSBox version the game still freezes. Using additional VESA support (the way described above) too. Does anybody have an idea on that???? I thought that the new vesa support would solve this problem too, but it didn't happen.

I played all the games using DOSBox 0.73 and D-Fend reloaded 7.0. Could the reason for Jack Orlando be that D-Fend reloaded is not exactly made for use with the new DOSBox, meant that it does not support the new features????