DOSBox is intended to run games. So features that benefit only an application programmer have little priority

attributes can't be set cross platform. So hence attrib does and will do nothing. (linux doesn't have a system or hidden attribute for example)
there is no game that uses either /s or /b
Can't you for /b not simply parse the output of dir yourself ? There isn't that much extra information. or using something like most programmers use.. Findfirst + find next (Which is the "official" way of searching for files)

To be honest this the first time I ever heard of somebody using dir /b. I didn't even know it existed.
Maybe if you can present some convincing arguments on why /b should be included, it might be possible to convince me. Codewise adding /B is pretty easy. /s is a bit harder though

Use FreeDOS or 4DOS inside of DOSBox for DOS features not provided by DOSBox.

Thank you for the answer, Qbix. Even that DOSBOX was developed with games in mind, actually DOSBOX is the best solution against the evil lack of real DOS on newer windows platform, not only for gamers. I am a small hardware and software producer, mostly related to microprocessors and microcontrollers. Like me, hundreds of thousands of other small entrepreneurs around the world grow professionally, grow their sole companies, creating jobs and supply the market with intelligent solutions, mostly to the industrial area. Lots and lots of us use DOSBOX not for games, you would be very proud to see how many use DOSBOX in a daily development, debugging and even running applications.

Before DOSBOX, the solution was to load the heavy Microsoft VPC, install a DOS 6.22 as a virtual machine and go from that. That's heavy, non practical and bad. We always look for a better solution, DOSBOX is it.

Lots of us expend many years developing solutions under DOS (assembly or compiled), under Win98, and suddenly REAL DOS was kidnapping for a greater platform, Win2000, WinXP and such. Unfortunately for those hundreds of thousands of developers that was a low punch.

Customers don't care, they want to run the application in their daily use platform, so our applications (millions of them) simply crash requiring a nasty dance with the devil trying to not blaspheme Mr. Gate's name in vain all the time.

You should be proud. DOSBOX "is" the number one hallo over our applications, and believe me, it IS helping in keeping bread over our tables.

Why /B would turn DOSBOX better? Because it will make our working hours after midnight a little short, will allow us to sleep a little bit longer, and smile for our kids. I work with electronics all my life, and I teach electronics for free at some online forums and distribution lists, even before Internet were available, the old time of BBS and 2400bps dial-up. Whenever I use my time to teach or help someone else in the electronic area, I feel proud for my participation, and feel much prouder if I realize more people would benefit from it.

Your kind of involvement with DOSBOX is not that much different. Of course we can parse the DIR redirected file and strip only the filenames, by the same way we could force customers (and ourselves) to install Win98 to be able to use our applications the way they were designed. Humans learn to develop TOOLS just to avoid it, make life easier a more productive.

Utilities and solutions such DOSBOX are gifts of wonder, and you will want to see it shine more and more. /B will be a gift inside a gift for many friends.

As you confirmed, in terms, DIR /B is much simpler to code than the plain DIR, and its implementation will be a token of DOSBOX importance for thousands of other people you never heard, benefiting from your job.

Why /B is much important than doing something else, like parsing the filenames, etc?

Because the thousands of already made applications that were done considering the /B switch.

You can be sure, the /B will not only help me, will help many thousands other friends using DOSBOX for lots of other uses and applications. All those friends will silently thank you much.

I personally thank all the people involved in making DOSBOX to exist and improve, putting smiles on faces of many users.

Do You Believe in Magic?

Sincerely, Wagner

It's of course nice that dosbox isn't only "useful" for games. But the decision
of a focus on games is simple: emulation correctness is not always priority
and is in several aspects balanced with speed considerations. This essentially
means that if you're using dosbox for games, you can enjoy the games that
work (with/without major/minor glitches), but for applications you're on your
own: if one of the correctness considerations introduces a (possibly not
obvious) flaw into the calculations or behaviour of your application, we don't
care and do not feel responsible.

If you feel like a feature is missing, the fastest way is to implement it yourself
into dosbox. Or convice somebody else to do that, which may be hard depending
on the feature.

HunterZ wrote:

Use FreeDOS or 4DOS inside of DOSBox for DOS features not provided by DOSBox.

What's wrong with doing it this way? 4DOS is free now, y'know.

4DOS is more than free. It's awesome.

Checking JP Software website for the 4DOS, during the installation it says not (strongly) recommended to run under WinXP. It recommends to use the 4NT paid version instead.

Going back to step #1 while trying to find a simple solution.

I also found out that the DOSBOX MegaBuid4.1 from H-a-l-9000 (DOSBOX v0.72) is the only one (AFAIK) that supports parallel port, and that is the one I am using. As I could not find any available (parallel) patch at the net for other versions of DOSBOX, then probably my quest to have /B available should go for H-a-l-9000 to implement on his Megabuild4.1

I also appreciate the configuration screen from H-a-l, when pressing Alt+Break. That's neat.

Tks
Wagner.

If you're running 4DOS in DOSBox then you're running it under DOSBox not under WinXP. It works fine, I do it all the time.

I also use the FreeDOS utilities under DOSBox without even booting FreeDOS itself. It has a command.com replacement (called freecom or something but named command.com) that I'm sure supports dir /B.

> I also appreciate the configuration screen from H-a-l

Not made by me...

This 4DOS not the old ass version:

http://4dos.zzl.org/

I was able to install and run 4DOS within DOSBOX.

Now I will try the application within 4DOS, and see if the parallel port still reachable by the application.

For some strange reason, PORTALK doesn't work in freeing ports 0378-037F from Windows XP. I needed to use USERPORT for that, and strangeer that it may seems, it doesn't work every time. Trying to figure it out yet.

---

Other alternative, instead of 4DOS (that could be difficult to install in all applications already on the field), would be to produce a .EXE file (outside de application) with the name DIR.EXE, accepting the /B switch, to provide the redirected file with only file names.

If you copy any nnnn.exe as dir.exe and try to run it, the DIR (native DOS command) will take over and your new executable dir.exe will never run. But there is a way: /DIR or \DIR or "DIR bypass the native DOS commands search, and instead, your copied application as DIR.EXE will run. But it doesn't solve the issue, since the applications are already calling DIR without trailing / \ or ".

The way to make it works, it needs to create the new executable to replace the original DIR command as IR.EXE, having the /B switch, and a simple (patcher) find and replace in the binary executable files, when the "SHELL" is called, replacing the "D" letter (from DIR) with "\" character, so the call now would be "SHELL \IR /B *.xxx > FILES.TXT". This will not change the executable size.

It may works.

tks
Wagner

You mentioned using VPC and MS-DOS.... You can do the same with DOSBox. Boot a real MS-DOS inside DOSBox.

[You mentioned using VPC and MS-DOS.... You can do the same with DOSBox. Boot a real MS-DOS inside DOSBox.]

Ok, created an image of a DOS622 as DOS622.IMG, mounted a drive where the image file is and booted such image file.

Worked like a charm.

Now I need to run the applications under this DOS6.22, under DOSBOX, to see if it works nicely, mostly related to the use of Parallel and Serial ports.

I wonder where I can find the patch for parallel port passthrough to use in the version 0.73 and newer to be released in the future. Up to now, the only version that "contains" such patch (parallel passthrough) is the Mega4.1. Will it have versions update in the future?

Thanks.
Wagner.

as far as I know hal is working on Mega 5