Users are not in the position to ask for new features. They may take profit of the work of the DOSBox developers,
but have to participate from that what they get.
As long as DOSBox does what the developers expect of their work, nobody needs to ask for new features or new versions in common.
Klimawandel.
OK -- DOSBox is awesome -- I look forward to its future
yeh, i'll wait for kewl things to happen to dosbox =D
and peter ferrie's patches too!
wrote:Users are not in the position to ask for new features. They may take profit of the work of the DOSBox developers,
but have to participate from that what they get.
As long as DOSBox does what the developers expect of their work, nobody needs to ask for new features or new versions in common.
The Wish List was closed because over the years people have posted in the thread wondering why their "wishes" were never developer or they think since they posted a Wish that means that it would be implemented.
Anyone who has frequented these forums for a moderate length of times knows that game compatibility is the primary focus of DOSBox this is not news. They also know that if you want something you need to either:
1. Develop it yourself.
2. Help with development.
3. Provide as much detail as possible and help with testing.
Just posting "I want this. DO THIS NOW", (even suggested subtly) is not the way to go about it.
If you read the first post of the Wish List thread then you know what the Wish List thread is primarily concerned with...GAME COMPATIBILITY. I can absolutely guarantee you that if you posted a feature that improved game compatibility then it would be worked on, but since DOSBox over the years has pretty much implemented the most obvious things then the only things left to suggest are tiny niggling things or things that have nothing to do with compatibility.
The Wish List thread will be back now wether it will be called "Wish List" or not who knows. 😀
wrote:ust posting "I want this. DO THIS NOW", (even suggested subtly) is not the way to go about it.
Probably re-newing it as 'Recommended Fix List', which wouldn't users to imply they could post wishes then, I hope. 😉
[quote="IIGS_User"]Users are not in the position to ask for new features. They may take profit of the work of the DOSBox developers,
but have to participate from that what they get.
As long as DOSBox does what the developers expect of their work, nobody needs to ask for new features or new versions in common.[/quote]
Of course we are in the position to ask for new features. We are capable of communicating. Mind you, I am have grown quite aware of the hostility shown to many requests, even when they are documented bug reports.
I am aware that some are asking for things that have already been asked for, but maybe, using that as an indication that more than one person wants could be fruitful.
People may well need something other than what the developers have thought of. Who knows? Once they know of it, the developers might even agree.
It is tempting, so very tempting to post the message that I am replying to to TheDailyWTF. It is a new record, IME, for hostility to the end user.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Many of the requests that could be labeled as a "bug report" are often requests for support for features that are not needed by most games. The emphasis that DOSBox places on games compatibility is the main reason that DOSBox works so much better for DOS games than most other emulators/virtualizers. Most of these kinds of requests are often from people looking fro support for some old application. In some cases it is for something as absurd as WordPerfect for DOS. Just use a modern office suite. Cost is not even an issue with things like Open Office. Personally, in most cases I don't see the reasoning behind the desire to run such old non-game applications, outside of nostalgia, when most have modern equivalents.
wrote:Users are not in the position to ask for new feat am aware that some are asking for things that have already been asked for, but maybe, using that as an indication that more than one person wants could be fruitful.
People may well need something other than what the developers have thought of. Who knows? Once they know of it, the developers might even agree.
Thanks, you're true. And bug reports are always fine.
I think I've to clear some possible missunderstandings:
Im not involved in db development at all, so I'm probably not in the necessity to start such a thread. 😉
Klimawandel.
[quote="collector"]Many of the requests that [i]could[/i] be labeled as a "bug report" are often requests for support for features that are not needed by most games. The emphasis that DOSBox places on games compatibility is the main reason that DOSBox works so much better for DOS games than most other emulators/virtualizers. Most of these kinds of requests are often from people looking fro support for some old application.[/quote]
Thinking back, it is more for games IME, but that might be selective memory.
[quote]In some cases it is for something as absurd as WordPerfect for DOS. Just use a modern office suite. Cost is not even an issue with things like Open Office. Personally, in most cases I don't see the reasoning behind the desire to run such old non-game applications, outside of nostalgia, when most have modern equivalents.[/quote]
Well, I use DOSBox to run WordStar myself. I use it as a programming editor. You can point to other editors as supposed equivalents. I have not found a better editor for me IMO. It works very well for me. I have yet to see a GUI editor that was remotely close to adequate for me.
Editors are a YMMV point. Witness the EMACS vs. vi wars.
Cat, meet pigeons. <toss>: Someone could point to modern games as supposed equivalents to old games, but I do not think that there will be a stampede away from them and DOSBox.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[quote="IIGS_User"][quote="Gene Wirchenko"]Users are not in the position to ask for new feat am aware that some are asking for things that have already been asked for, but maybe, using that as an indication that more than one person wants could be fruitful.
People may well need something other than what the developers have thought of. Who knows? Once they know of it, the developers might even agree. [/quote]
Thanks, you're true. And bug reports are always fine.
I think I've to clear some possible missunderstandings:
Im not involved in db development at all, so I'm probably not in the necessity to start such a thread. :wink:[/quote]
I did report a bug in detail with how to reproduce it. I received considerable flashback from it. It was a minor bug having to do with directory names in the DOSBox CLI. I can understand a reply stating, say, that the item was low priority and would be dealt with the next time the CLI was given a lookover, but I found the hostility puzzling. I might have moved more towards development, but that response rather scared me off.
I have other ideas for enhancements, but at the moment, why bother? DOSBox has much of its value because many people are using it. I would not want to code something just to have it tossed.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Re: 0.72: cd Command Bug
Just if people wonder what that great bug was all about.
Any followup discussion on that will be deleted of course.
