Can I use a device in DOSBox?

If the driver tries to talk directly to some piece of hardware (other than a common sound card), there is a very high probability that it won't work in DOSBox.

Yeah, unfortunately, the way DOSBox was written, it wasn't really meant to be a "low-level" PC emulator, but rather it was written as more something that can just be used to run old DOS games on modern PCs at a reasonable speed. If I had some programming skill of my own, I'd probably create a version with more "business-oriented" features, such as a serial passthrough, TCP/IP support, and printer support.

probably create a version with more "business-oriented" features

Which would be pretty stupid because there's already bochs, a bunch of virtualizers
and other things out there if you want to go "business oriented" (yeah BUSINESS!!!).

wd wrote:

Which would be pretty stupid because there's already bochs, a bunch of virtualizers and other things out there if you want to go "business oriented" (yeah BUSINESS!!!).

DOSBox has some very nice features that last time I checked (admittedly a while ago) bochs lacked, such as a built-in OS, built-in drivers for lots of stuff like keyboard, ANSI, command-line editing, XMS, EMS, mouse, CD and networking (thus more conventional RAM remains free), being able to work without disk images in most cases, EMS support that's independent of protected mode, etc.

So yes, DOSBox is often *much* better than bochs or virtualizers even for "applications".

I understand your aversion to bloat and featuritis, as those tend to hold up development of actually useful features and make testing harder (more code, more bugs). But maybe when the addition of big new features for games has more or less come to an end (after 3dfx support gets in, for example, and maybe support for 320x200 based composite CGA modes; I can't think of any other big DOS gaming features that are still missing), a time could come when the "no support for applications" policy will be somewhat relaxed?

because ?
DOSBox its target was and is games. The bloat for business and the reasons not to add them are still valid after 3dfx support goes in.
Or have you forgotten the most wanted feature of savestates ?

If we continue your line of thought then we could any feature to dosbox which has totally nothing to do with the goal of dosbox.
We could even add feature that defragments your harddrive. Generates web pages and brings world peace.
Of course there would only be room for those features after we add the so called business features.

such as a built-in OS, built-in drivers for lots of stuff like keyboard, ANSI, command-line editing, XMS, EMS, mouse, CD and networking

All these things are written in a if-something-needs-it-add-it fashion, which means
parts are dummy implementations, speed oriented hacks or plain workarounds that
may have arbitrary effects on non-gaming applications. So if you use it for anything else
than casual gaming you're stupid, irresponsible or both imo.

As Qbix says, adding "business" (awkward) oriented features to the official releases
only hints people at that they can actually use it with our approval, so this will not
happen unless carefully thought through it's needed (which is also why i dislike having
a bunch of custom builds readily lying around offering such features rather than putting
the burdon of patching sources themselves to the persons actually wanting these features).

But i won't care about discussing this from now on, i recommend Qbix checks the
homepage and docs that there's a prominent tag stating the intended usage of dosbox,
so people have it written in stone.

Qbix wrote:

DOSBox its target was and is games.

I didn't deny this, nor would I want you or anybody else to change that. But the fact remains that DOS games already require you to emulate most of the capabilities of a typical DOS machine, which means your code is already quite well suited to running DOS applications in MOST aspects, even if that's not the intention at all. This doesn't mean that you should use it to run medical life-support software or critical business apps and I find it a good idea to say so prominently on the download page; but there is such a thing as less-than-critical business apps, or stuffy old people who simply like to use their old favorite word processor at home. It might even be their definition of computer gaming.

The bloat for business and the reasons not to add them are still valid after 3dfx support goes in. Or have you forgotten the most wanted feature of savestates ?

Of course not, but I personally doubt that all the things that tend to come up here again and again (such as simple LPT passthrough support, or floppy disk image flipping support, or support for CTRL-BREAK or for advancing the date at midnight) are as hard to get working right as savestates. I'm not saying it's no work at all, or that I could do it, or that you should do it, or even that it's easy, only that it might not be quite as hard and bug-prone as savestates, nor add as much code.

If we continue your line of thought then we could any feature to dosbox which has totally nothing to do with the goal of dosbox.

For me "slippery slope" is rarely a really strong line of argument. I'm absolutely not asking you to "continue" this line of thought to absurd extremes.

We could even add feature that defragments your harddrive. Generates web pages and brings world peace.

Sure but I hope you agree that nobody in their right mind would ask for that. IMHO you can ask in your right mind about LPT support. Note I said "ask" not "demand".

All these things are written in a if-something-needs-it-add-it fashion, which means parts are dummy implementations, speed oriented hacks or plain workarounds that may have arbitrary effects on non-gaming applications. So if you use it for anything else than casual gaming you're stupid, irresponsible or both imo.

I think your code is much better than you make it out to be here. And I can read code well enough to understand its most important limitations, even if I couldn't have written it myself. If that's stupid or irresponsible, so be it.

As Qbix says, adding "business" (awkward) oriented features to the official releases only hints people at that they can actually use it with our approval,

Maybe place a very prominent NO WARRANTY clause in the startup window? People who don't know that it's their own responsibility what they do with free software are really too dumb to be alive anyway.

so this will not happen unless carefully thought through it's needed (which is also why i dislike having a bunch of custom builds readily lying around offering such features rather than putting the burdon of patching sources themselves to the persons actually wanting these features).

I fear that it's just a feature of free software, or even of programming for some company, that you don't have complete control over your own code, as other people can adapt it or even create forks if they don't like the direction you're taking with your projects. A feature that I like in most cases, even if it bugs me once my own code is affected. It's a bit like your children growing up and starting their own life. And being aware that this might rile you up, I will dare to state that there might be fewer unofficial builds if there wasn't so much demand for the features they offer above and beyond the official build.

And obviously, carefully thinking about features rather than adding them for the heck of it or for some imagined "better DOS compatibility" makes a lot of sense. Many programs would be better if such an approach guided their development.

But i won't care about discussing this from now on, i recommend Qbix checks the homepage and docs that there's a prominent tag stating the intended usage of dosbox, so people have it written in stone.

No need to continue this discussion, as for me everything has been said and I don't expect to convert you to my point of view. And I agree about stating the intended use.

And I can read code well enough to understand its most important limitations, even if I couldn't have written it myself. If that's stupid or irresponsible, so be it.

Show me one person of the "i need the dongle/cnr machine software to work"
people who reads the code or understands the limitations.

I can only show you myself as an example that there is what I believe to be a responsible and informed way of using DOSBox for more than gaming.

And I don't think YOU are to be held responsible when some joker bets the factory on DOSBox, or any other single piece of computer hardware or software for that matter. It's their job and their life; if DOSBox works for them (and it often does), good for them, if it doesn't, tough titty.

And I don't think YOU are to be held responsible when some joker bets the factory on DOSBox

So you never had to do with lawyers?

if DOSBox works for them (and it often does)

As stated so many times you can NOT figure that out even by running it a thousand times and having no problems.

I consider this thread irrelevant now.