http://ansis.folklora.lv/dosver/

Neat, a setver replacement. I'll give it a shot later tonight.

BTW, did I read correctly? Is DOSBox essentially based upon DOS 5.0? I ask because if it's enough based on that, it probably would be a good idea to keep digging for my old copy of it.

EDIT: That's commercial software. I'm not paying for a utility that tells programs I have a different version of DOS. That comes with DOS which I still own from so many years ago.

Then. You will need to do some hacking. Get Ralph Brown interrupt list and look for the get DOS version call. Fake the check and you are all set.

Yeah, if I could do that kind of thing I'd just dig up the code for DOSBox and change the internal tables or something myself.

So are you going to honestly tell me that such a simple basic tool that came with pretty much every version of DOS itself can only be used by either doing some serious hacking the likes of which you know the average user cannot do or by paying someone (legally you must pay if you use it for more than 30 days, so legally you are telling us to buy that software) a price that, despite it's seeming lowness, is actually a bit of a ripoff considering that it basically does nothing you aren't supposed to already have? Yeah, I guess tomorrow we have to pay $5 to be able to use the CD and DIR commands. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, I'm just saying that it's kind of against the philosophy of DOSBox.

Seriously though, there are some games and programs that will refuse to run just because they assume if your version of DOS isn't what they expect to see then it's a bad version that can't handle what they want. It seems to me that this basic functionality will eventually be needed in DOSBox.

Anyway, I managed to find my old installation disks for DOS 5.0. I had to manually extract each of the files, but, once that was done, I now have a proper copy of DOS 5 and it's tools including things like MODE. Setver does now appear to at least run correctly though it doesn't seem to be fooling programs as far as I can see. When I type setver, I do get the proper list of programs and version numbers that I should see at least. More importantly, I no longer have a problem with being unable to use certain DOS tools I was used to (such as XCOPY which supports recursive copying) since I no longer have to rely on my DOS 6.22 versions but now have DOS 5 versions that are ok with DOSBox's DOS version. I guess this confirms what I thought I had read, that DOSBox is indeed essentially acting as DOS 5.0.

Nazo wrote:

Yeah, if I could do that kind of thing I'd just dig up the code for DOSBox and change the internal tables or something myself.

heh. I'm with ya there but according to WD's post here:
Topic 8167
it's not that complicated.

So are you going to honestly tell me that such a simple basic tool that came with pretty much every version of DOS itself can only be used by either doing some serious hacking the likes of which you know the average user cannot do or by paying someone (legally you must pay if you use it for more than 30 days, so legally you are telling us to buy that software) a price that, despite it's seeming lowness, is actually a bit of a ripoff considering that it basically does nothing you aren't supposed to already have?

DOSBOX short-term goal (short being years of course) is as a GAME emulator. So far you've just listed utilities (namely DOS 6.22) which require SETVER or version changing functionality in DosBox. List a game which requires such a feature and I'm sure the devs will jump all over it.

You asked for a method to change DOS version. I showed you a utility that accomplishes that purpose. As for paying for it....just like with any software that someone creates and does something usefull and if it's funciotnality that you need, then yeah you must pay, unless you aquire it illegaly. It's called life.

Yeah, I guess tomorrow we have to pay $5 to be able to use the CD and DIR commands.

CD/DIR are required in DosBox to be able to navigate the file structure. SETVER is not required for running games, AFAIK.

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, I'm just saying that it's kind of against the philosophy of DOSBox.

Currently the "philosophy" of DosBox is running games. Not getting utilities to work.

Seriously though, there are some games and programs that will refuse to run just because they assume if your version of DOS isn't what they expect to see then it's a bad version that can't handle what they want. It seems to me that this basic functionality will eventually be needed in DOSBox.

List the games. As I stated above they don't really care about the programs at this point in time. (but possibly your post may incite some acitivty....)

Yes, when DosBox decides to support programs instead of just games then SetVer (or similar functionality) will need to be included.

Anyway, I managed to find my old installation disks for DOS 5.0. I had to manually extract each of the files, but, once that was done, I now have a proper copy of DOS 5 and it's tools including things like MODE.

We usually suggest using FreeDOS which has pretty much the same tools but have been updated with bugfixes and more functionality + they are free to use.

Read this link for Qbix's explanation of SETVER in DosBox: MS-DOS version compatibility

P.S. You can install DOS 6.22 under DosBox and use setver all you want there.

I was planning on adding a simple setver functionality to DOSBox.
But considering the fact that the people using DOSBox allready feel ripped off by the fact that
we allow people to read and change the source. I think I'll store my plans for that in the large list of non-attention worth things.

DosFreak wrote:

heh. I'm with ya there but according to WD's post here: Topic 8167 it's not that complicated. […]
Show full quote

Nazo wrote:

Yeah, if I could do that kind of thing I'd just dig up the code for DOSBox and change the internal tables or something myself.

heh. I'm with ya there but according to WD's post here:
Topic 8167
it's not that complicated.

Broken link. I hope that you're right that it's not that complicated, but, simply put, if it involves writing software to intercept interrupts, you're talking about something that is not actually simple to many of us. Let me put it this way. The most complicated (and only) assembly code I know is nop.

So are you going to honestly tell me that such a simple basic tool that came with pretty much every version of DOS itself can only be used by either doing some serious hacking the likes of which you know the average user cannot do or by paying someone (legally you must pay if you use it for more than 30 days, so legally you are telling us to buy that software) a price that, despite it's seeming lowness, is actually a bit of a ripoff considering that it basically does nothing you aren't supposed to already have?

DOSBOX short-term goal (short being years of course) is as a GAME emulator. So far you've just listed utilities (namely DOS 6.22) which require SETVER or version changing functionality in DosBox. List a game which requires such a feature and I'm sure the devs will jump all over it.

Er, firstly, like I said, it's possible some would refuse to run on DOS 5.0 versus DOS 6.22. However, that was taken a bit out of context. I'm saying that trying to sell users commercial software is contrary to DOSBox's philosophies, which is a different discussion of games or programs in DOS 5 versus 6.

You asked for a method to change DOS version. I showed you a utility that accomplishes that purpose. As for paying for it....just like with any software that someone creates and does something usefull and if it's funciotnality that you need, then yeah you must pay, unless you aquire it illegaly. It's called life.

I guess I aquired my copy of linux illegally then. That, or maybe life isn't always as simple as "if you need it you pay for it or you steal it." Anyway, the point is just that it's a simple little utility that does next to nothing and isn't really worthy of being commercial. There are free alternatives out there all over the place I'm sure. Thing is, my question wasn't actually "what program do I use?" so much as "how do I get it working?" Immediately pointing me to a commercial software as the only response actually isn't terribly useful as I could have done my own searches for software. Telling me that I needed external software (as was the implication) or how to get it working was all I really needed. In particular, pointing me straight to commercial software, then getting into a long discussion when I say I want a free utility for the job just leads away from the issue rather than solving anything.

Yeah, I guess tomorrow we have to pay $5 to be able to use the CD and DIR commands.

CD/DIR are required in DosBox to be able to navigate the file structure. SETVER is not required for running games, AFAIK.

In context that was "today dosbox people expect us to pay for setver, tomorrow they decide to tell us to pay for cd/dir." Just making a little point. Actually, it's not entirely a joke I'm afraid. Over the years I've seen some wonderful freeware projects get ruined because they decided to start slipping in commercial requirements. DOSBox looks to be the future of playing abandonware, so I absolutely do not want to see it go this route.

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, I'm just saying that it's kind of against the philosophy of DOSBox.

Currently the "philosophy" of DosBox is running games. Not getting utilities to work.

That's out of context too. I wasn't commenting on games versus programs, though, frankly I think the point is to someday get complete and accurate emulation of an old computer running DOS. All I was saying is that peddling commercial modules is not in keeping with DOSBox's philosophy.

Seriously though, there are some games and programs that will refuse to run just because they assume if your version of DOS isn't what they expect to see then it's a bad version that can't handle what they want. It seems to me that this basic functionality will eventually be needed in DOSBox.

List the games. As I stated above they don't really care about the programs at this point in time. (but possibly your post may incite some acitivty....)

How can I possibly do that? Do you have any idea how many DOS games exist? I sure don't. What I can tell you is that I'm constantly trying new things, so when I find one I'd gladly post about it here, but, who knows how long that could be. There are too many for me to test them all and tell you what works and what does not due to this.

Anyway, I managed to find my old installation disks for DOS 5.0. I had to manually extract each of the files, but, once that was done, I now have a proper copy of DOS 5 and it's tools including things like MODE.

We usually suggest using FreeDOS which has pretty much the same tools but have been updated with bugfixes and more functionality + they are free to use.

Could be, but, FreeDOS sometimes has issues since things tend to be designed to run in it's full environment. Catch is, if you run the full environment, then games will have issues (I have done this on a real system, not just an emulated one.) On the other hand, I did, after all, happen to own DOS 5.0, so, why not use it?

That said, anyone without access to DOS 5.0 disks probably would be best advised to go to FreeDOS.

Read this link for Qbix's explanation of SETVER in DosBox: MS-DOS version compatibility

I don't really get what I'm looking for there. Yeah, I understand the idea behind it -- that software looks for a specific version in the theory some subtle thing (perhaps undocumented) may change -- but, the problem is, there's nothing I can do about it since I didn't design the software. All I can do is compensate for their poor designs in that software as best as I can and ensure that any software I should ever make (which so far consists of incredibly simplistic frontends at best) won't make some stupid check that refuses to run unless it sees exactly the conditions it expects (like those that refused to run if your processor wasn't of a certain clock speed with the assumption that gameplay wouldn't be acceptable rather than letting the user make that determination themselves. I think a few Sierra games did this sort of thing?)

P.S. You can install DOS 6.22 under DosBox and use setver all you want there.

Well, the DOS installation method makes things a lot tougher. Right now I just have a C_DRIVE folder mounted as C:\ and over 2 gigs worth of data in games on an external harddrive. To go this route, I'll have to make an up to 4GB partitioned harddrive image (or multiple 2GB images with single partitions) and format with FAT16. I guess I could alternately use up to 4GB in a single partition with FAT32 (the external harddrive must use FAT32 so I can access it everywhere) and run the Windows 98 version of DOS (officiallly 7.00.98 or something lke that) however, I have had some games fail to work on it that really needed DOS 6.22 on a real system (not emulated.) Also, I will then get the pleasure of dealing with memory once again since I will start to have to load more TSRs and such and DOS itself takes up more memory. Actually, I ran a test where I ran a really simplistic DOS off of a floppy disk and even just that dropped conventional memory down a bit. Believe it or not, there are some really picky games that ask for ridiculous amounts of conventional ram (off the top of my head I can think of H2O which was a newer game using newer graphics and audio but apparently still relied on conventional ram for some reason. So, you either turn off music and kill half of the game's atmosphere, or you spend insane amounts of time to get I think 610KB of conventional free.) Yeah, if I have to do that, maybe I will just for the one thing, but, this is definitely not an overall solution. Right now the way DOSBox handles its memory while providing functionality of things like mouse, cd-rom, etc always leaving you with practically the full 640K free is just amazing and all but guarantees that no game will refuse to run because of conventional memory. Anyway, right now any time I want to make a change to a configuration file, copy some data files, add a new game, or otherwise make any changes to the filesystem, I just open it up in explorer, cmd, or whatever else I want to use at the time and simply do so. If I have to go to a filesystem image, I'll have to probably do most of my operations of this nature within DOSBox itself (which can make things a bit harder when working with my primary harddrive where I'll have to deal with long filenames and such.) That or track down some sort of software which allows me to mount harddrive images (and it has to handle partitions then I guess rather than just mounting a single filesystem like you might do in linux with the loopback filesystem.) Either way, it brings the current just drag and drop and I'm done in seconds method down to something that's long and drawn out taking 5+ minutes to do a simple operation.

Qbix wrote:

I was planning on adding a simple setver functionality to DOSBox.
But considering the fact that the people using DOSBox allready feel ripped off by the fact that
we allow people to read and change the source. I think I'll store my plans for that in the large list of non-attention worth things.

Who feels ripped off by DOSBox being opensource? I'm not clear, did you maybe mean my earlier statement? I said it's a ripoff to pay pretty much any price for a DOS version faking utility when it's basically built into DOS. Sorry if you didn't mean that. Frankly, just ignore anyone who might actually feel DOSBox is a ripoff somehow. It's the only project I've ever seen do so well with emulation that so many old classics actually become playable. Things like VMWare can get a few basics like QuadNet working, but, real games have stupid hardware calls or other poor design things that send things like VMWare into a panic (or just plain run so slowly as to be unusable.) I'd say overall if there are any users that feel ripped off, they are dwarfed by the number of those who are extremely happy to finally have games running the way they are supposed to.

Oh please. If there's a game which refuses to run because of
a dos-version problem, name that game.
If it's a program, please stop talking, nobody cares about
programs. If it's essential for whatever reason, change the
sources accordingly (see the bottom of dos.cpp). But please
stop annoying people with questions about how to run programs
under dosbox.

I was refering to your statement.

Anyway I was thinking of adding the internal command ver
and the extending it with "ver set reported dos version to applications"
It's relatively easy to add.

Although the only times I could have needed it were for some dos programs which checked
for dos version max 4

Well, IMHO the simple setver functionality would be good (I mean setting the DOS version number reported by DOSBOX). I have not ever needed it (and I would be able to recompile DOSBOX if I needed to change it), but people appear here from time to time asking about it.
The most obvious use would be that some MS DOS utilities would work (ok, FreeDOS utils are fine here, but why not increase the choice...).

This is just my personal opinion (generally I think it usefull to have some generally usefull things in DOSBOX even though I personally do not need them - another thing is e.g. printer patch etc) - but if it is not there, nothing much happens from my point of view.

Mirek

Nazo wrote:

DosFreak wrote:

heh. I'm with ya there but according to WD's post here:
Topic 8167
it's not that complicated.

Broken link.

Not entirely, it's a link to a restricted forum. I don't think the posts there will alleviate your problems though (like writing way too long texts in a forum).

JAL

> like writing way too long texts in a forum

indeed 😀

Dosbox is aleady able to run a l o t of dos programs, not only games. But as it is primarily meant to run games this happens more or less coincidently. Requests for the command you're referring to will not be listened to until you actually name ONE (one would already be enough) game.
My suggestions: Try to use bochs, qemu or vmware in addition to dosbox. These programs are of course not as easy to handle as dosbox (which is dosbox' most important advantage), but they can run any real os. So if you really think ther's a program in need of this command, why not try these emus also?

DOSBox can run a "real" os as well.

Anyway. Get the cvs and type
ver set 4 2
and be happy

Qbix wrote:

DOSBox can run a "real" os as well. […]
Show full quote

DOSBox can run a "real" os as well.

Anyway. Get the cvs and type
ver set 4 2
and be happy

Good thing you put quotations around the "real". I was about to comment that your statement wouldn't be true until you could run Linux under DosBox. 😉

Nice implementation. I have a question. Typing "ver set" on command prompt means that dos version is set to 0.0, right? Can 0.0 be accepted? Another one, it's just my opinion. I think that -set is better than set because some other commands like 'config' already have used something like that. (consistency would be better)

> Can 0.0 be accepted?

If people type stupid things, they'll get stupid results. Besides that,
0.0 is fine as it's only a variable that is queried by a few progs anyways.

In context that was "today dosbox people expect us to pay for setver, tomorrow they decide to tell us to pay for cd/dir." Just making a little point. Actually, it's not entirely a joke I'm afraid. Over the years I've seen some wonderful freeware projects get ruined because they decided to start slipping in commercial requirements. DOSBox looks to be the future of playing abandonware, so I absolutely do not want to see it go this route.

I've read this a couple of times now (I DID try to read the whole lengthy text, but in the end it is clear that Nazo has no clue and underlines it with every other sentence), but it still cracks me up.
Imagine the outcry if Dosbox one day stops supporting free software like Abandonware? (there was a bit sarcasm here - be warned).
I still need to find the post where Dosbox people require *anybody* to run that commercial setver or even suggests this...
(unless Dosbox users that try to help out are Dosbox people)

And thanks to the Devs for actually implementing setver. Now if I could remember the program that needed it some time ago. Hmm, have to check everything again...

That statement, put back in context, was in reference to the response that the only way I would get setver support was by using that commercial software. You said that you read the whole thing, but, you missed the quote above it (or have quotes disabled?) that it was a response to.

As for if DOSBox stopped "supporting abandonware" I was really just saying that I have seen free projects of amazing quality suddenly reach the decision that they should take their software commercial. Even on the occasions that it doesn't kill the software, it does pretty much kill the community. Unfortunately, it happens, but, not usually to opensource projects like this thankfully (there'd have to be pretty significant changes left out of CVS to get away with that obviously.)

kruwi wrote:

Dosbox is aleady able to run a l o t of dos programs, not only games. But as it is primarily meant to run games this happens more or less coincidently. Requests for the command you're referring to will not be listened to until you actually name ONE (one would already be enough) game.

As I said previously, there are too many DOS games even to count. Just look at a website such as The-Underdogs which has primarily DOS games. Needless to say, they don't have everything by even a long shot. They are up to over 5000, and even if you exclude the few Windows games and the few games they have for consoles I'm willing to bet you're still looking at over 4000 on that site alone. I'm not going to start spending all my days digging through the incredibly number of DOS games that exist just to make one little point on a forum. If you want to dig through all DOS games ever made to prove that none have ever been made which require a particular version of DOS, then by all means do so, and I will gladly retract all my statements on such a thing if you do indeed prove this. Start from the late 80s or so. I think I recall having a problem with a game refusing to run on a friend's Tandy because it had an older version of DOS, so I had to bring a bootdisk from home or something. Sorry, I don't remember what game it would be (back then I mostly had a ton of little things rather than a few big things.)

My suggestions: Try to use bochs, qemu or vmware in addition to dosbox. These programs are of course not as easy to handle as dosbox (which is dosbox' most important advantage), but they can run any real os. So if you really think ther's a program in need of this command, why not try these emus also?

I don't disagree, and I already own VMWare for my primary PC. Problem is, I wanted programs to go inside the DOSBox environment just to go along with it to make it easier to do certain tasks related to gaming such as using a recursive file copy rather than the standard single folder at a time method. I might add that partially I was just trying to verify which version of DOS DOSBox was based on so I'd know whether spending a lot of time digging through old dusty disks and trying to get my floppy drive to work again so I could get my DOS 5 files on there would be a pointless thing or not.

Anyway, Qbix, I'd really like to thank you. Perhaps overall setver functionality ISN'T a big deal, but, the fact is it can make running a lot of things a lot easier. While DOSBox's primary goal is to get old games running as well as possible on modern systems, I'm glad to see every little step made on the more ultimate goal of legacy system emulation. It is my hope that in the future when processors and operating systems are even less compatible making it impossible to run DOS at all, DOSBox will be there to save us by covering any DOS related needs we may have -- whether application or gaming. From what I hear, the x64 version of Vista won't even have NTVDM, so at least one part of that future may be closer than I originally thought.