Kieran293 wrote:

Is there any reason for this other than the fact its development has been focussed on games?

From what I can tell it runs the program perfectly.

Precisely that. If it works, then feel free to use it and enjoy it. However if something breaks, don't be angry at us.

Perfect then.

I'm not entirely sure why people would get angry at people making something in their spare time but hey ho I'm sure it happens.

Kieran293 wrote:

...I'm not entirely sure why people would get angry at people making something in their spare time...

There are all kinds of entitled people out there 🤣

MMaximus wrote:

Kieran293 wrote:

...I'm not entirely sure why people would get angry at people making something in their spare time...

There are all kinds of entitled people out there 🤣

True! After reading these forums I can tell that the program usage of DOSBox has really caused problems 😵

There's also silly imaginary strifes over its ubiquitousness, like "ugh a lazy dos box release" complaints on any old dos game arriving to Steam, disregarding the rights hurdles it takes for the game itself to get there. And of course certain forks of others' emulators that go all arrogant over dosbox because dosbox takes the hassle-free approach end users should be more grateful for...

Without knowing what the application is, obviously there's no way to comment on its use. Perhaps you don't specify because you're afraid it would get the thread locked? (Which I suppose is not unreasonable given the history here.)

As far as I know normal DOS applications, I mean the kind you are probably thinking of (i.e. excluding anything with networking or low-level disk access), don't use anything that games don't and should run in DOSBox. That is consistent with everything I've experienced myself and heard from those that have.

I am not sure what this exactly is supposed to mean:

Kieran293 wrote:

I'm not entirely sure why people would get angry at people making something in their spare time but hey ho I'm sure it happens.

If this is to say that we must never be angry at someone that did something for free, I have doubts at least. Taken strictly it would imply that writers of viruses and other malware are just fine because they don't charge for their 'product'. Even apart from actual malice such as that, a product may from one's own point of view have sufficient flaws to be worth less than the nothing paid for it. To ask exactly when people should be angry seems too philosophical at that point; it's sufficient to note that they will be in most cases even if they do not publicly express it.

leileilol wrote:

There's also silly imaginary strifes over its ubiquitousness, like "ugh a lazy dos box release" complaints on any old dos game arriving to Steam, disregarding the rights hurdles it takes for the game itself to get there. And of course certain forks of others' emulators that go all arrogant over dosbox because dosbox takes the hassle-free approach end users should be more grateful for...

My experience is with Dosbox is pretty decent, it's been cool playing games and running programs I'd only heard of and never used.

koverhbarc wrote:

Without knowing what the application is, obviously there's no way to comment on its use. Perhaps you don't specify because you'r […]
Show full quote

Without knowing what the application is, obviously there's no way to comment on its use. Perhaps you don't specify because you're afraid it would get the thread locked? (Which I suppose is not unreasonable given the history here.)

As far as I know normal DOS applications, I mean the kind you are probably thinking of (i.e. excluding anything with networking or low-level disk access), don't use anything that games don't and should run in DOSBox. That is consistent with everything I've experienced myself and heard from those that have.

I am not sure what this exactly is supposed to mean:

Kieran293 wrote:

I'm not entirely sure why people would get angry at people making something in their spare time but hey ho I'm sure it happens.

If this is to say that we must never be angry at someone that did something for free, I have doubts at least. Taken strictly it would imply that writers of viruses and other malware are just fine because they don't charge for their 'product'. Even apart from actual malice such as that, a product may from one's own point of view have sufficient flaws to be worth less than the nothing paid for it. To ask exactly when people should be angry seems too philosophical at that point; it's sufficient to note that they will be in most cases even if they do not publicly express it.

In all honesty I have no idea what the application is/who made it/when it was made. All I know is that I couldn't run it in in x64 and downloading Dosbox was quicker than installed 32 bit Windows.

I agree that people who creates viruses/malware are exempt from the "don't complain about something which is free" logic. I struggle to see how something can be worth less than nothing but everyone has their own view. From my perspective and understanding, Dosbox has been created in people's free time with the aim to help run Dos games (and as people like me are willing to try, programs) which it does, for free... So complaining about it seems unnecessary. If unhappy with Dosbox then people can use a different emulator.

What I mean by 'worth less than nothing' - which is not true of DOSBox, even for me - is that you would have been better off not getting it, even though you paid nothing. For example, if you take a lot of time trying to set up a program, only to find out that it will not work for you anyway, you're out a bunch of time for nothing. Or, if you can do what you want, but in such a complex or burdensome manner that you end up buying a piece of software that does the job far more easily, you have again just lost a lot of time compared to simply buying the commercial software immediately. These have happened to me and I'm sure to others as well. And naturally there are many examples outside of software, as well.

Apart from the things I've already said my piece about (LFNs etc.), DOSBox has worked just about as well as possible, given the limitation of no direct hardware access (which would pose its own problems anyway).

koverhbarc wrote:

What I mean by 'worth less than nothing' - which is not true of DOSBox, even for me - is that you would have been better off not getting it, even though you paid nothing. For example, if you take a lot of time trying to set up a program, only to find out that it will not work for you anyway, you're out a bunch of time for nothing. Or, if you can do what you want, but in such a complex or burdensome manner that you end up buying a piece of software that does the job far more easily, you have again just lost a lot of time compared to simply buying the commercial software immediately. These have happened to me and I'm sure to others as well. And naturally there are many examples outside of software, as well.

Apart from the things I've already said my piece about (LFNs etc.), DOSBox has worked just about as well as possible, given the limitation of no direct hardware access (which would pose its own problems anyway).

That makes much more sense. I completely agree 😎