Reply 20 of 35, by Pan
And what's the unfair part??
Clearly you were annoyed at what you perceived to be criticism aimed at Dosbox. I don't believe that's what Kaminari and TeaRex intended at all. Just an explanation of what they had seen themselves. I felt there was no need for undue hostility, that's all 😀 Everybody respects the work done by the Dosbox developers and those that have helped.
Better use a frontend with some default templates. Adding a config option for upper cycles limits just to avoid your new pc not wasting cpu time is not a highly needed thing.
A frontend would serve no purpose whatsoever. It would not solve the problem anymore than using Dosbox without it. Surely that must be obvious by now 😀
I agree that limiting the upper cycles is not a high priority in comparison to other tasks. But then again, since Dosbox already calculates the maximum cycles available on a constant basis under max mode, then implementing a patch to fix it at an upper level is not likely to be difficult at all. Which is why I felt it was worth suggesting. If I thought it was a real slog to do, then I wouldn't of bothered mentioned it.
Finally, I didn't suggest this idea because I was thinking about my own PC, but because I could see a use of it in creating templates that are flexible to a range of PC's. I do some administration work for a gaming community and could see the use for it myself. As somebody else noted earlier too, there are other possible uses for it.