GL1zdA wrote:

It's worse than I thought. Launched VirtualPC, installed DOS 6.22, installed VPC 2004 DOS additions. Before installing WfW I wanted to install NC 5.5 - it fails when it should copy files. Tried both 2004 and 2007 with the same result. I don't think Symantec used a sophisticated installer for NC and it makes me worried what else will fail on VPC. (Also tried VirtualBOX. After some problems with DOS setup not being able to format the HDD, I managed to install it. Now I will have to setup the CD-ROM driver).

Bah, NC 5.5 by Symantec.. Be happy that it doesn't work! 😁
The original releases by Norton Computing from the 80s are the real gems.
But that's a bit offtopic, isn't it ?

It seems this thread is going from 'VM with best WFW 3.11 support' to 'How we can malign Virtual PC'. Sad. 😢

Norton Commander wrote:

-postsnip-

Well, VPC can display 16.7 M colors at 1024x768, while dosbox only can show 65k. Btw, would you mind giving me the link to IE 5? I only have the version provided by Tucows, wich is screwed up with their stuff 😜

valnar: no

Yes.

Your view of what DOSBox is, is irrelevant. The only tangible advantage pointed out so far is that VPC has printing and networking by default, an advantage only for those not able to setup DOSBox, but actually running win 3.11/wfwg, DOSBox can do what VPC does and more.

Point out tangible advantages of running. An example is, as Svenne has pointed out, that VPC can do 16.7m colors vs DOSBox 65k.

Well MB5 can also do more than 65k colors at 1024x768

And we're back to DOSBox completely on top again:)

ih8registrations wrote:

valnar: no […]
Show full quote

valnar: no

Yes.

Your view of what DOSBox is, is irrelevant. The only tangible advantage pointed out so far is that VPC has printing and networking by default, an advantage only for those not able to setup DOSBox, but actually running win 3.11/wfwg, DOSBox can do what VPC does and more.

Point out tangible advantages of running. An example is, as Svenne has pointed out, that VPC can do 16.7m colors vs DOSBox 65k.

Sigh. You just don't get it. DOSBox is a DOS emulator for games. VPC is a PC emulator and as such has functions which makes it work with HDD images better. Loading CDROM disks, floppys, networking, COM support, tools for moving files between the host and guest, etc. DOSBox's image support is rudimentary at best. Would you suggest that DOSBox is better at running Windows 95 than VPC or VMware too, just because it *can*?

It's like asking what works better to bang nails into a wall - a hammer or a wrench. Technically, both work.... never mind. I can't even believe I'm arguing with you.

BTW, I run WfWG on every PC emulator out there, including DOSBox. I have for years. Using DOSBox with an image is painful compared to VPC, VMware, VirtualBox or anything else. Perhaps *you* would like to point out why you believe DOSBox is better at Workgroups - an all purpose networkable operating system with application support vs just games?

> Sigh. You just don't get it.

Someone's not getting it.

> DOSBox is a DOS emulator for games. VPC is a PC emulator

Again, it's irrelevant what you want to define them as.

> such has functions which makes it work with HDD images better.

Do tell.

> Loading CDROM disks, floppys, networking, COM support

DOSBox does these.

>tools for moving files between the host and guest

DOSBox doesn't need them, mounting a better solution.

>etc.

Do tell.

>DOSBox's image support is rudimentary at best.

Do tell.

> Would you suggest that DOSBox is better at running Windows 95 than VPC or VMware too, just because it *can*?

It's not a matter of can, it's a matter of better. From what I understand for w95, DOSBox isn't as good as VMware/VPC, specifically speed and stability.

>It's like asking what works better to bang nails into a wall - a hammer or a wrench.

That's not it at all.

> I can't even believe I'm arguing with you.

You'd have to put up an argument first, aka pointing out specifics that make your case, which is what I've been asking for from the beginning, which you haven't done.

I've already listed all my reasons. I can't help that you won't accept them. Just because DOSBox does some of the same things as VPC doesn't make it better. The OP asked what was better, not what can handle it. Usability between the two is night and day when images are involved, instead of DOSBox's native execution of running directly from the host.

>tools for moving files between the host and guest
DOSBox doesn't need them, mounting a better solution.

No its not. Not by a long shot. Not until network support is up, how do you get files on the image easily?

Like I said, tell us all why you believe DOSBox is *better* at WfWG?

Edit: Your last post proves to me that you've never actually compared them, because you're asking for basic things that VPC (and VMware) do. Why don't you try it first before sounding ill informed?

Saying one is for games the other a for pc emulation and repeatedly saying better aren't "reasons" that explains how. Saying it handles hd images better without saying how doesn't prove your assertion, nor "etc," nor saying dosbox is rudimentary, you have to explain how that's the case.

DOSBox is better because it runs win3.11/wfwg fast, stable, does networking, printing, true color output like VPC, plus the sound capabilities of DOSBox.

ih8registrations wrote:

Saying one is for games the other a for pc emulation and repeatedly saying better aren't "reasons" that explains how. Saying it handles hd images better without saying how doesn't prove your assertion, nor "etc," nor saying dosbox is rudimentary, you have to explain how that's the case.

DOSBox is better because it runs win3.11/wfwg fast, stable, does networking, printing, true color output like VPC, plus the sound capabilities of DOSBox.

So usability is not a factor for you at all? And you didn't really list any reason why DOSBox is better either.

Svenne wrote:

Btw, would you mind giving me the link to IE 5? I only have the version provided by Tucows, wich is screwed up with their stuff 😜

You can get it from Oldversion.com.

Here's another caveat to VPC/MS-DOS: You will have to load device drivers for mouse, cd-rom, networking, etc. You will not have enough base memory to run the majority of apps (this is one of the things I have always detested about DOS). Even if you have 16MB RAM all DOS apps always load into the base 640k and anything else is considered extended/expanded memory. If you eliminate network drivers you will end up with about 570K which many apps like WordPerfect 5.1, Harvard Graphics etc. simply won't load. Not all drivers can be loaded high which complicates the matter - the multi-config option is a good workaround but you still have to choose between having sound, networking, mouse in your apps. I haven't tried printing in VPC so I imagine that would be one advantage over DOSBOX.

DOSBOX is still the king! Why? Self-contained environment. Sound, CD-ROM and mouse are virtualized so you get 600K base memory. WOW! I couldn't get that even on the 386 PC I used to own! What about learning curve? DOSBOX is much much easier to setup than DOS/VPC. If you have trouble installing/configuring DOSBOX don't even attempt DOS/VPC.

This is 2010. I have no use for DOS other than playing some of my favorite old games or running demos. The only reason I installed WFW in VPC was just to see if it could be done! I will not be surfing the web in WFW since most sites won't display properly or lock up the browser. If you have some favorite WFW games or apps then stick to VPC. The only games I recall playing in Windows 3.1 was MS Arcade, whose games I play in MAME.

As an old-school tech from the days of DOS 2.11 it is my professional opinion that DOSBOX is better suited to running legacy apps and does a better job of emulating legacy hardware than VPC.

GL1zdA wrote:

Before installing WfW I wanted to install NC 5.5 - it fails when it should copy files.

I installed NC 5.0 from images I made off the install floppies. What does your config.sys and autoexec.bat look like?

The reason why DOSBox is better is because it does what VPC does along with the sound capabilities of DOSBox, that's better.

If you have some usability examples, not setup, I'm all ears. Me from page one of this thread: "So, when setup, DOSBox is better."

Norton Commander wrote:

Here's another caveat to VPC/MS-DOS: You will have to load device drivers for mouse, cd-rom, networking, etc. You will not have enough base memory to run the majority of apps (this is one of the things I have always detested about DOS). Even if you have 16MB RAM all DOS apps always load into the base 640k and anything else is considered extended/expanded memory. If you eliminate network drivers you will end up with about 570K which many apps like WordPerfect 5.1, Harvard Graphics etc. simply won't load. Not all drivers can be loaded high which complicates the matter - the multi-config option is a good workaround but you still have to choose between having sound, networking, mouse in your apps. I haven't tried printing in VPC so I imagine that would be one advantage over DOSBOX.

This does not apply to WfWG, since you need an image to load the network drivers via a config.sys & autoexec.bat on top of a real DOS. Therefore DOSBox is treated no differently than VPC.

At the time of this post I didn't have a WfWG image on VPC, but only VMware. But here are my findings about loading things high.
Virtual PC and VMware Workstation DOS memory management

ih8registrations wrote:

The reason why DOSBox is better is because it does what VPC does along with the sound capabilities of DOSBox, that's better.

If you have some usability examples, not setup, I'm all ears.

That is not true, and is a very narrow interpretation of the differences. You are simply focusing on one thing, and it's not my job to educate you.

I've asked for what VPC has over DOSBox. People have pointed to networking, printing, issue with share/vshare, and displaying 16.7 million colors, all of which have been revealed to be handled by DOSBox. I've asked if VPC runs things better, tangible things, like faster, prints better, stability. My "narrow" focus is which one is better once setup, that is, running. Your job is to back up your claims, like you claiming VPC handles hd images better. To back that up, you have to say how.

an advantage only for those not able to setup DOSBox

I've asked for what VPC has over DOSBox. People have pointed to networking, printing, issue with share/vshare, and displaying 16.7 million colors, all of which have been revealed to be handled by DOSBox

Even though I'm the first to normally defend Dosbox your line of reasoning just makes me mad 😀
The only thing DOSBox does of the above things is handling share/vshare correctly. DOSBox does not do networking, printing and display 16.7 million colors. It doesn't. HAL's MB5 does that, not DOSBox.
It's like saying a Smart is faster than a Ferrari and when everyone tells you that this is simply not true you pull out the Diablo http://www.metacafe.com/watch/240685/smart_car_vs_ferrari/ 😀

HAL's MB5 is DOSBox, and it's not a matter of defending DOSBox, it's a matter of answering the question of what's best when up and running.

VPC is an advantage for those people who don't know how to compile. For those that do, they can get the patches and have the capabilities of VPC along with DOSBox sound.

🤣
it's not DOSBox, DOSBox is what you download at www.dosbox.com. HAL's MB5 is a special build with great additions, but these additions are not in DOSBox for a reason.

Applying patches to DOSBox doesn't stop it being DOSBox.

It's a special build. When you ask for help with a special build here you are often shot down by the devs, so... uhm, calling it a "special, official unsupported DOSBox" is probably the right term. Another point that would shy away people from that.
Consider the following discussion here:
User:"I downloaded Dosbox to access printer and have network support in Windows 3.11. I can't get it to work!"
friendly dev:"Dosbox doesn't support that!"
User:"But I downloaded the version that says it does do that!"
friendly dev:"Then ask for support where you downloaded this! This is Dosbox support forum and we don't support this!"
We've seen similar discussions in the past. When you now add another problem the user has and asks for help, the devs will turn him down again, because he doesn't use the official version....

it's a matter of answering the question of what's best when up and running.

Considering the OP's question, DOSBox in it's original form is just not up to it.
Applying patches, compiling, figuring out from varios forum posts how the special features work is really not that simple. VPC beats DOSBox in regard to these features in simplicity.
Another point where DSOBox looses, when you consider that you want to have the features the OP asked for is CD-Rom support. When you boot a Dos image in Dosbox (which you need to do to have network, printing, share) you don't have access to the CD-Rom anymore. Or to any other folders or hdd images (though you do still have access to floppy images).

Oh, another thing that I just remembered (but maybe falsely), doesn't the printer patch for Dosbox only work with non-usb printers?

(editing a post in such a big fashion after there have been replies is not good netiquette - but I changed my post enormously as well, now 😀)