You know what one of the bigger problems is? People don't come to this forum often enough, and then come to the conclusion that the program is too difficult. Its nice to see a story where the guy figures it out by himself, but I think he could have saved much frustration by asking here.

Do we smell or something? 🙁

avatar_58 wrote:

Do we smell or something? 🙁

Yes. With my DigiScents iSmell I can.... and its a quite disturbing odor indeed.

avatar_58 wrote:

You know what one of the bigger problems is? People don't come to this forum often enough, and then come to the conclusion that the program is too difficult. Its nice to see a story where the guy figures it out by himself, but I think he could have saved much frustration by asking here.

Do we smell or something? 🙁

Biggest problem are people that doesn't want to read ANY instruction. Also, they want to push a button and have the game magically running (without glitches, of course).

Is amazing how many people hates Nintendo 64 and PSX emulators because of that.

Nah, they're just a bunch of ingrateful people 😀
The funny thing is that in dosbox is actually easier getting to run the games than in old plain DOS.

Much easier, and when a setting is wrong, it's much quicker to change than having to reboot, change setting, reboot again and again until you find the right thing. Memory management is nearly non existant now.

Zup wrote:

Is amazing how many people hates Nintendo 64 and PSX emulators because of that.

I hate those emulators simply because of the plugins....too much guesswork involved. That, and every N64 emulator I've tried can't fix my lockup problems with my games.... 😒 I won't even go into how many different things I had to try to get Metal Gear Solid running in ePSXe without problems.

So I would tend to agree with the parties who dislike those emulators.

iampiti wrote:

Nah, they're just a bunch of ingrateful people 😀
The funny thing is that in dosbox is actually easier getting to run the games than in old plain DOS.

I tell people that over and over again, but they just don't listen.

I think the reason a lot of people struggle with dosbox is the CLI aspect, and being expected to edit the configuration file by hand. Of course there's frontends but that's an extra level of complexity and an extra download.

Just to be clear, DOSBox doesn't work on XP64 and this guy found a special build that does? If so, too bad for him special builds don't tend to ever be upgraded and his is from 2005...

DOSBox does indeed work on XP64 and the 'special' build he found was an older build from me with patched timesync code. Newer builds include patches like scaler optimization and dosbox' own autocycles code which apparently "make things worse" 😁

It's amazing how many people are constantly using older builds of DosBox. You'd think that once they download dosbox from wherever they got it that they'd would assume that it was old (all software is anyway) and go to the DosBox home page.....but nope. Weird.

It no longer surprises me. Most people will get whatever version is linked from whereever they hear about it from, and as long is it "just works" they won't look for a new/alternate version. It's only when there are problems that they *might* go looking for a newer version.

So whatever his problem was which that CVS version fixed it is supported by the official version now?

Anyway, it's true what you said about people but not entirely. If it was, most people would still have Windows 3.11 right now or at least 95 or 98. Well, anything but the newest. Then again, XP is first overall stable version of Windows so I would say Vista would be the biggest test case ever for your theory, especially since it would require everyone to buy new computers.

XP is just a messed up Windows 2000. 😉

Vista uptake is going to be the slowest uptake of any MS OS ever. (Except of course for the first ver of MSDOS/Windows1/2 heh)

I can't wait till it's released though. It's gonna be fun watching all the fools doing like they always do. Installing and using an MS OS on the first day of release. ahhh, it's gonna be great.

Now that I have WinXP tweaked to the maximum, I won't be swapping it in the short term. 😁

I don't mind if XP is just a (much better, in my eyes) version of 2000. My point is that it's the first overall stable version of Windows to hit the average user.

Vista has not only that to compete with but also the fact that it's the first version that comes with a system requirement of "a new computer".

What do you want people to wait for? For Vista SP1 two years later? Besides, it's not so true because it would take them more than a day to buy a new computer...

Personally, I feel no need to buy a new computer (well, make that computers...) and ditch XP now that I finally found a (freeware!) outgoing firewall software, which was the only thing I hated about XP.

I mean, not having to restart when I install something sounds great, but they'd have to do much better...

My biggest fear though is that like always programmers would only program for the latest Windows' version, in this case Vista. D-day would be when you see the name winVista (or whatever - what should it be really?) next to DOSBox... 😉

Funny enough, I checked some MS Vista compatibility test thingy some days ago (to check whether your current machine specifications would suffice for running it). Windows Vista had minimum hardware requirements similar to those for running The Elder Scrolls III: Oblivion. Microsoft did it again. They should be proud.

What do you want people to wait for? For Vista SP1 two years later? Besides, it's not so true because it would take them more than a day to buy a new computer..

Actually yes. It would be very nice if home users took the corporate approach (or at least the sane corporate approach) and only upgraded to an MS OS when the first or second SP comes out. The current method is much worse for everyone.

My biggest fear though is that like always programmers would only program for the latest Windows' version, in this case Vista. D-day would be when you see the name winVista (or whatever - what should it be really?) next to DOSBox...

Well your pretty close. Symantec announced their Norton 360 product today to compete with Windows Onecare. heh.

IIRC, I believe the system requirements for Vista were created so that you could actually use Windows with other programs while previous Windows system requirements were just for Windows itself......like people only ever use just Windows with their computer.

Vista's biggest method of propagation is going to be new systems I imagine.

People with current systems probably won't care all that much. And, you better believe people are still out there with Win95, 98, and ME. I fix 'em all the time.

I tried Vista on my laptop here and it ran as quick or quicker than XP. It's actually fairly impressive. And the UI is pretty slick yet minimal. But it's obviously a lot like XP, especially if you turn off the new UI.