DOSBox Feature Request Thread

General information and assistance with DOSBox.

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby Dominus » 2018-11-02 @ 11:51

"Old dosbox versions 0.50-0.73 source + binary(x86)"
User avatar
Dominus
DOSBox Moderator
 
Posts: 7691
Joined: 2002-10-03 @ 09:54
Location: Ludwigsburg

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby Qbix » 2018-11-02 @ 11:52

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=14834
You are your own though. If you don't want to use the latest version that has the functionality, then that is really your own problem.
Water flows down the stream
How to ask questions the smart way!
User avatar
Qbix
DOSBox Author
 
Posts: 10693
Joined: 2002-11-27 @ 14:50
Location: Fryslan

DOSBox Older Source Code Pre v0.50

Postby 95DosBox » 2018-11-02 @ 13:40

Dominus wrote:"Old dosbox versions 0.50-0.73 source + binary(x86)"


Thanks for the nudge Dominus I guess I missed it. I looked back harder this time I had to use 7-zip to examine the other .tar.gz files to locate the source code folder found in:
dosbox-0.50.tar.gz\dosbox-0.50.tar\dosbox-0.50\src\

Just so I understand are .tar.gz files the standard way of releasing source code or is that just for DOSBOX?
I was expecting something like dosbox-0.50.source.tar.gz or something to pinpoint what this file was as I mistakingly assumed this was the windows executable using another compression method that I don't use.

dosbox-0.50.tar.gz 2002-07-26 <--- Source Code

dosbox-0.50.win32.zip 2002-07-25 <--- Windows executable

dosbox-0.50.linux-x86.tar.gz 2002-07-25 <--- Linux executable


Now where can I get older source codes from before v0.50 for download?

What is the first version 0.10?

What date was DosBox first conceived and when did the first line of coding begin?

I think it would be helpful to analyze the older source code versions dating back to the beginning where it was more compact and less complex and easier to understand.

Thank you.
User avatar
95DosBox
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 2017-5-23 @ 09:34

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby Dominus » 2018-11-02 @ 13:58

If understanding is your goal, best look at the SVN messages. Gives you also explanation for most source changes.
User avatar
Dominus
DOSBox Moderator
 
Posts: 7691
Joined: 2002-10-03 @ 09:54
Location: Ludwigsburg

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby collector » 2018-11-02 @ 17:40

This does not make sense. If you cannot be bothered to use the latest because you do not like the splash screen, so you want to modify the source of old, unsupported versions to change the Z: drive why not just add a cls to the autoexec section of the conf file using 0.74-2? If you cannot bear even the short flash of the splash, then modify the source to 0.74-2 to delete or change it. Forget the old, unsupported versions.
User avatar
collector
l33t
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 2003-1-15 @ 10:39

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby olddos25 » 2018-11-02 @ 22:52

Also, I think it is stupid to not use the latest version just because you don't like something as minimal as a splash screen. I mean, really? Why is a splash screen something you don't like? I don't understand.
Currently mod on several Discord servs and a forum, so you can trust me if you want a DOSBox mod here!
Other places to find me:
DraStic: http://drastic-ds.com (as dsattorney)
EPForums: http://www.epforums.org (as emulationfan)
olddos25
Member
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 2017-5-14 @ 02:34
Location: Argentina

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby 95DosBox » 2018-11-03 @ 19:32

olddos25 wrote:Also, I think it is stupid to not use the latest version just because you don't like something as minimal as a splash screen. I mean, really? Why is a splash screen something you don't like? I don't understand.

Hopefully this answers your question if you're a real DOS user like myself and understand the ins and outs which make you feel like you're in a real USA MS-DOS CLI. As someone who's used IBM PC-DOS 1.0 and onwards you will notice these things. Although your name is olddos I'm not certain if you've used DOS as old as mine. I also have a stock of sealed old MS-DOS with the older MS logo design. So my connection to DOS is probably older than yours. I even used Apple DOS but that's different.

The splash that occurs in 0.74 adds about a 1 second delay with the Logo. I like to access the command line right away. I know why it's there as I was told the reasoning it was added in later versions. It's a shame the good users were punished for the acts of those companies.

collector wrote:This does not make sense. If you cannot be bothered to use the latest because you do not like the splash screen, so you want to modify the source of old, unsupported versions to change the Z: drive why not just add a cls to the autoexec section of the conf file using 0.74-2? If you cannot bear even the short flash of the splash, then modify the source to 0.74-2 to delete or change it. Forget the old, unsupported versions.


If you've already taken the time to remove the splash from the source code or how to do it and the necessary guide to compile it I'll be happy to try it out. I figured the easiest would be to maintain my version if it's just swapping Z to B if it can be hexedited in that fashion since I'm more familiar with that approach. If you've isolated the code to do it I would try and compile it myself to see if it works. I'm not a coder so whatever compiling this just to fix this entails it's probably easier said than done.

CLS would only clear the "Welcome to DOSBOX v0.74" screen which does not bother me.

If the Splash Logo delay could be reduced to 0.01 seconds so it flashes instantly and goes away or just plaster the DOSBOX Logo above the "Welcome to DOSBOX v0.74" text as ASCII text it would have been fine.

0.72 does work for all the DOS programs that I used so I didn't need to update higher yet. Would you update higher if everything works fine and you save an extra second each time from not seeing the splash logo? I'm sure maybe later I will run into a DOS program that will require updating to the latest version in order to work. But then again using the real Mc Coy would also do the same trick.

But if 0.74B or 0.74-2 as it's called adds more functionality to DOS commands with full DIR options and the American directory layout instead of European? it would actually resemble a truer form of DOS.

An an example Dir /o-d would be common command I would use.

Some others:
Dir /ah

Dir /os
Dir /-os

Dir /on
Dir /-on

Dir /p (Ctrl+C) or (Ctrl+Break) doesn't work to break out.

I suppose that DATE and TIME could be added as well.

The ability to customize the Prompt using the Prompt command.

These are just at the top my head that I thought should be included in DOSBOX if it ever got updated to make it worth updating for a better experience.

Aside from that probably integrated Munt would be the other feature.
User avatar
95DosBox
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 2017-5-23 @ 09:34

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby lightmaster » 2018-11-03 @ 19:45

DOSBox is for games bro.. Please deal with it..
Image
User avatar
lightmaster
Oldbie
 
Posts: 640
Joined: 2005-10-01 @ 12:09
Location: Sol III

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby krcroft » 2018-11-03 @ 23:21

95DosBox,

I first used DOS in the mid 80s and swiched from command.com to 4dos in the very early 90s; and never looked back. I beleive it works well on DOSBox, so you might want to try that for a genuine and feature-rich command-line interpreter including customizable prompt.

Regarding enforced viewing of splash screens - I fully agree this harms the user experience. Yes, there are completely garbage individuals out there willing to do anything to make a quick buck (and I'm all for techniques to foil and maximally counter-harm those exploitationists), however this is something that plagues the entire emulation niche of software, where dosbox is mostly a bit-player compared to the console emulators.

The console emulator authors have largely held to a 100% silent startup sequence to provide the most authentic experience for users. Take a look at some of the RetroPie videos on YouTube for an example. I believe that harming the entire userbase of DOSBox as punishment because of a handful of idiots is an incorrect design approach, and at a minimum a --quiet flag should be provided. Fortunately this is GPL software, which is free from the limitations imposed by any individual or group. We have the code and can do what we wish with it.
User avatar
krcroft
Member
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 2017-4-29 @ 15:07
Location: Ogden's Retreat

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby vanfanel » 2018-11-04 @ 12:01

I would like to see adjustable video refresh rate for the emulated machine. Games with smooth scroll (SuperFrog, Jazz JackRabbit, Pinball Dreams / Illusions, Turrican 2...) would be true to it's smooth-scrolling nature. As things are, they have these noticeable hiccups every few seconds.
vanfanel
Newbie
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 2011-9-05 @ 21:32

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby DosFreak » 2018-11-04 @ 21:05

Gimme a fraking break.

DOSBox is different from console emulators since DOSBox is a PC emulator using open source code used by legitimate companies packaged with legal copies of games so in that world it's not a bit player. People are quite eager to package games with DOSBox and fail to provide credit where it's due so that's why it's there, console emulators try not to bring attention to themselves. It's easy to remove as long as you know to use a text editor and compile if it bothers you that much.

P.S. I've been using DOS since the mid 80's and the splash screen doesn't bother me.
User avatar
DosFreak
l33t++
 
Posts: 9972
Joined: 2002-6-30 @ 16:35
Location: Your Head

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby krcroft » 2018-11-05 @ 01:52

Yeah, it's just a preference when it comes to splash screens. When you see them a couple times, fine. When I see them hundreds of times then it's time to turn them off.

I remember shareware bolting on ASCII adverts when you exit, but the golden-era for splash screens took off with Windows 95 software. All the big software houses worth their salt had splash screens (all the Adobe products, dev suites like Borland/Matlab/Mathmatica, the AutoDesk products, ESRI, etc.. that might be a neat thread to round up all those screenshots). I admit to even adding splash screens to Windows commercial software I worked on back then too. But personally, I turned them off if there was an option; but hey, it's just a preference.

Talking about "providing credit to DOSBox where it's due" versus "console emulators not bringing attention to themselves" -- isn't that just re-framing? So console emulators aren't due credit? I think emulation is one of the most impressive software feats, across the board. Anyway.. I just find it a /bit/ odd why literally every other open source software offers (or defaults to) "silent" mode, but DOSBox doesn't. Imagine the flip scenario where bash, gcc, sed, awk, mount, dd, ifconfig, and others all printed a quick colorized banner, and those authors similarly refused to offer a silent mode -- suggesting advanced users can "do it themselves in the source". Heck, even the entire Linux kernel can be quiet'd down to nothing (all ~20 million lines). Yeah, I can snip it out, and no, I don't want to paint the bike shed with this topic.. it's just a curiosity.
User avatar
krcroft
Member
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 2017-4-29 @ 15:07
Location: Ogden's Retreat

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby Dominus » 2018-11-05 @ 06:37

You misunderstood and mixed the credits comment up.
DOSBox is its credit due and many don't want to credit DOSBox for selfish reasons even though their market depends on it.
OTOH emulators may not want to draw too much attention to themselves often due to legal reasons (though IMO the emulator scene craves attention and thrives on it).
It wasn't meant that emulator developers do not deserve credit.
User avatar
Dominus
DOSBox Moderator
 
Posts: 7691
Joined: 2002-10-03 @ 09:54
Location: Ludwigsburg

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby krcroft » 2018-11-05 @ 07:43

Thanks for clarifying Dominus.

The open source community in general has a history or being taken advantage of by shady or incompetent companies trying to repackage or bundle GPL software without complying with the license; when they're caught the Free Software Conservancy steps in to legally enforce the terms of the GPL.

Those wronged authors see the isssues corrected; the GPL is complied to. The authors haven't responded by adding colorized banners to their software.

So I guess there's something unique going on with DOSBox? Are we talking specifically about Steam or GOG not complying with the GPL? Or maybe they would comply, but they would promptly disable all banners if given the choice, leaving DOSBox uncredited? (even though they would still comply with the GPL?).

If that's the case, we should consider adding a license clause to DOSBox enforcing use of the banners when the binaries are redistributed. Without a clause, any commercial repackager (such as Recalbox) could still comply with the GPL by stripping the banner and providing that one-line code change on their website.

(Steam did $4.3 billion in revenue, a chunk coming from DOSBox-redistributed games, and we're here discussing future features to their benefit on vogons.org, which I can barely see or use on my phone because there's no one to maintain it.. I would consider dual licensing DOSBox like Redis and Mongo have done, with per-sale and per-instance royalities flowing back into a non-profit so money can support DOSBox in an organized manner).
User avatar
krcroft
Member
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 2017-4-29 @ 15:07
Location: Ogden's Retreat

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby DosFreak » 2018-11-05 @ 09:03

No the issue really wasn't GOG (although could be since users aren't very smart) in fact IIRC GOG provided the current splash screen.

Splash screen discussion
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=21081&hilit=splash
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=21741&p=162941&hilit=splash#p162941
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=21081&p=157723&hilit=splash#p157723

The easiest approach was to add a splash screen.

When it comes to money things get complicated and I don't think Qbix wanted the headache for a hobby.
User avatar
DosFreak
l33t++
 
Posts: 9972
Joined: 2002-6-30 @ 16:35
Location: Your Head

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby krcroft » 2018-11-05 @ 09:17

Interesting; thanks. (I could read the middle link, but I'm "not authorized" to view the first and last).
I share the same sentiment on all fronts.

I would leverage the community 100% to draft the dual license terms and both setup and run the non-profit.

I have no doubt there are people with all kinds of professional backgrounds that would love to help in this regard. The board members directing use of the funds could be made up of those highly trusted and long-standing members who genuinely could be trusted to use the money for the best interest of the authors and the software.

The goal would be to minimize any distraction to the core developers.

I would say that if a person's hobby is so successful that its paying the wages and benefits for employees at several companies - maybe those non-profit royalities could do the same for the active core developers; or afford them a yearly face-to-face gathering to discuss ideas and plans; somewhat like the Linux plumbers conference. (it's all one's preference though.. but it would be nice to have options like that).

Just an idea! Sounds like it was kicked around a bit back then too.
User avatar
krcroft
Member
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 2017-4-29 @ 15:07
Location: Ogden's Retreat

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby Qbix » 2018-11-05 @ 10:27

I personally like the being free and open part a lot of DOSBox. The splash screen, I agree it is a bit of weird thing in that, but we made dosbox too invisible if you start it in fullscreen for our liking. There being companies who butchered up our icon, not providing source and such, made me decide that we would try to make it more obvious that dosbox was being used, as otherwise it ended up with me buying the games in order to check. Of course people can recompile, but then at least we know they intentionally want to hide dosbox usage which is good to know when they ask for (free) help/assistance. However, splash screens are not uncommon in software.
I might change it a bit for the next version, either in how it looks or behaves in certain situations, but it won't go away.

Going dual license at this point is not a trivial thing to do and it would mean that we would have to spend even more time protecting our license when it is used in a wrong matter. It is an idea nonetheless.

0.74-2 and the bug hunting afterwards (the dynrec core bug that I haven't found yet:( ) were a big drain on my personal resources and for all the others who helped out.
Fortunately, things are improving. For example, I have gotten some help with upgrading the forum, but it is a bit paused as my job required me to put in a lot of extra hours these last weeks. People are making patches (like you) and i am working on a few other things that will help out in the long run of keeping DOSBox working nicely.

So things are in motion, maybe not as fast as they ideally would be, but I am trying hard to improve things related to DOSBox.
Water flows down the stream
How to ask questions the smart way!
User avatar
Qbix
DOSBox Author
 
Posts: 10693
Joined: 2002-11-27 @ 14:50
Location: Fryslan

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby krcroft » 2018-11-05 @ 14:42

Qbix, thanks for the thoughts and detailed explanation.

If you want to kick around any of these non-coding ideas further, just shout! The more myself and others can help, the better. DOSBox has brought me much enjoyment, and I want the best for the project, in whatever form that takes - no doubt fellow commenters share the same sentiment.

I wish you good luck and Godspeed on all fronts, and look forward to what ground we can cover going forward.
User avatar
krcroft
Member
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 2017-4-29 @ 15:07
Location: Ogden's Retreat

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby olddos25 » 2018-11-05 @ 17:31

95DosBox, names aren't always honest, dude. I mean, I haven't used DOS cause I was born in the early 2000s, but it sounded cool and I had used before on another forum. So... that.
Currently mod on several Discord servs and a forum, so you can trust me if you want a DOSBox mod here!
Other places to find me:
DraStic: http://drastic-ds.com (as dsattorney)
EPForums: http://www.epforums.org (as emulationfan)
olddos25
Member
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 2017-5-14 @ 02:34
Location: Argentina

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Postby slx » 2018-11-13 @ 11:20

slx wrote:Hello there, is there any joystick emulator takes place in the new DOSBox v0.75? It would be really cool!

lightmaster wrote:HI, no..

:cry:
User avatar
slx
Newbie
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 2013-10-19 @ 16:05

PreviousNext

Return to DOSBox General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest