VOGONS


DOSBox-X grudgedy grudge

Topic actions

  • This topic is locked. You cannot reply or edit posts.

First post, by Avenger

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Yesterplay80 wrote on 2021-05-26, 20:06:
Avenger wrote on 2021-05-13, 02:31:

Please add LFN support.

Honesty, I don't see much benefit in adding LFN to ECE, if any at all, as it's primary use is still running DOS games. And I think using long file names with those would create more problems than it would be useful. Why don't you just use on of the other, more advanced forks that offer LFN support, like DosBox-X?

How would it cause more problems? More options is always better.

Already tried DOSBox-X, it's not geared towards games.

Reply 1 of 20, by Wengier

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-04, 03:37:
Yesterplay80 wrote on 2021-05-26, 20:06:
Avenger wrote on 2021-05-13, 02:31:

Please add LFN support.

Honesty, I don't see much benefit in adding LFN to ECE, if any at all, as it's primary use is still running DOS games. And I think using long file names with those would create more problems than it would be useful. Why don't you just use on of the other, more advanced forks that offer LFN support, like DosBox-X?

How would it cause more problems? More options is always better.

Already tried DOSBox-X, it's not geared towards games.

It is more correct to say that DOSBox-X goes beyond DOS gaming and has some config options with different default values from vanilla DOSBox, not that it is not geared towards games in general. DOSBox-X has several advanced but useful features designed almost exclusively for gaming purposes, such as save state and 3dfx support (DOSBox ECE supports the latter too, but not the former). Having some options with different default values as another emulator does not make it not gear towards games in general, though it may be fine to add a special compatibility mode just for the purpose of providing more compatibility with another emulator.

Reply 2 of 20, by Avenger

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Wengier wrote on 2021-06-04, 15:38:
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-04, 03:37:
Yesterplay80 wrote on 2021-05-26, 20:06:

Honesty, I don't see much benefit in adding LFN to ECE, if any at all, as it's primary use is still running DOS games. And I think using long file names with those would create more problems than it would be useful. Why don't you just use on of the other, more advanced forks that offer LFN support, like DosBox-X?

How would it cause more problems? More options is always better.

Already tried DOSBox-X, it's not geared towards games.

It is more correct to say that DOSBox-X goes beyond DOS gaming and has some config options with different default values from vanilla DOSBox, not that it is not geared towards games in general. DOSBox-X has several advanced but useful features designed almost exclusively for gaming purposes, such as save state and 3dfx support (DOSBox ECE supports the latter too, but not the former). Having some options with different default values as another emulator does not make it not gear towards games in general, though it may be fine to add a special compatibility mode just for the purpose of providing more compatibility with another emulator.

When you have to invest more time and effort to accomplish the same result that would indicate that what I said was accurate.

Reply 4 of 20, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-04, 22:11:
Wengier wrote on 2021-06-04, 15:38:
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-04, 03:37:

How would it cause more problems? More options is always better.

Already tried DOSBox-X, it's not geared towards games.

It is more correct to say that DOSBox-X goes beyond DOS gaming and has some config options with different default values from vanilla DOSBox, not that it is not geared towards games in general. DOSBox-X has several advanced but useful features designed almost exclusively for gaming purposes, such as save state and 3dfx support (DOSBox ECE supports the latter too, but not the former). Having some options with different default values as another emulator does not make it not gear towards games in general, though it may be fine to add a special compatibility mode just for the purpose of providing more compatibility with another emulator.

When you have to invest more time and effort to accomplish the same result that would indicate that what I said was accurate.

no it doesn't, it just indicates that DOSBox-X is not meant as a drop-in replacement of DOSBox. Please, pretty please, don't spread your beef with -X everywhere.

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox
DOSBox SVN snapshot for macOS (10.4-11.x ppc/intel 32/64bit) notarized for gatekeeper

Reply 6 of 20, by Avenger

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Dominus wrote on 2021-06-05, 15:02:
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-04, 22:11:
Wengier wrote on 2021-06-04, 15:38:

It is more correct to say that DOSBox-X goes beyond DOS gaming and has some config options with different default values from vanilla DOSBox, not that it is not geared towards games in general. DOSBox-X has several advanced but useful features designed almost exclusively for gaming purposes, such as save state and 3dfx support (DOSBox ECE supports the latter too, but not the former). Having some options with different default values as another emulator does not make it not gear towards games in general, though it may be fine to add a special compatibility mode just for the purpose of providing more compatibility with another emulator.

When you have to invest more time and effort to accomplish the same result that would indicate that what I said was accurate.

no it doesn't, it just indicates that DOSBox-X is not meant as a drop-in replacement of DOSBox. Please, pretty please, don't spread your beef with -X everywhere.

Stating my experience isn't a "beef" so much as it is an informed opinion.

If people choose to take everything a developer says at face value then every piece of software in existence would be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Reply 8 of 20, by xcomcmdr

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-05, 23:02:
xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-06-05, 07:26:

DOSBox-X is for games and more. What's so hard to understand about that ?

For reasons I've already listed it's clearly geared more towards jack of all trades and master of none.

"What's so hard to understand about that?"

I can run any game with DOSBox-X just fine.

Reply 9 of 20, by Avenger

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-06-07, 07:04:
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-05, 23:02:
xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-06-05, 07:26:

DOSBox-X is for games and more. What's so hard to understand about that ?

For reasons I've already listed it's clearly geared more towards jack of all trades and master of none.

"What's so hard to understand about that?"

I can run any game with DOSBox-X just fine.

I never said you couldn't.

Your experience is also exclusive to only you.

Reply 11 of 20, by Avenger

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-06-08, 04:18:

Not really, no. It's very easy to setup. I suspect a lot of people use it successfully.

Not when you have to jump through additonal hoops. I had the exact same setup on vanilla DOSBox and it turned into a week long ordeal trying to get the exact same game and installation to properly run on DOXBox-X.

Like I said. Your experience is only your own.

Reply 12 of 20, by Wengier

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-08, 22:23:
xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-06-08, 04:18:

Not really, no. It's very easy to setup. I suspect a lot of people use it successfully.

Not when you have to jump through additonal hoops. I had the exact same setup on vanilla DOSBox and it turned into a week long ordeal trying to get the exact same game and installation to properly run on DOXBox-X.

Like I said. Your experience is only your own.

Your games were previously set up for one emulator (vanilla DOSBox in this case) already. Why would you even expect them to run in another emulator (DOSBox-X in this case) without any changes at all? They are different emulators, and even if you try to run pre-configured games in different real DOS machines they probably require some changes too, not that all of them can run directly without any changes. The reason is very simple - not all machines are exactly the same, so different configurations are generally expected. Think about why most games come with some setup programs, instead of just some fixed settings? This simply because there are always different configurations, and games need to be configured to support different systems. These apply in general, not just this specific case of course. Similarly, if your games were previously set up for DOSBox-X, you probably need to make several changes to make them run in vanilla DOSBox too. In such case one can also say you need to “jump through additional hoops to make them work in vanilla DOSBox” according to your logic.

Reply 13 of 20, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

I'm going to split this -X discussion off this thread later today.
"Your experience is also exclusive to only you."
<- consider this: everyone figures it out and is fine with -X being different than vanilla Dosbox, because it is NOT vanilla Dosbox.
You seem to carry a grudge ever since it turned out your -X problems were caused by not realizing this. *Seem* is rather mild because it is blatant obvious in everyone of your posts.
Just let it go!

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox
DOSBox SVN snapshot for macOS (10.4-11.x ppc/intel 32/64bit) notarized for gatekeeper

Reply 14 of 20, by Avenger

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Wengier wrote on 2021-06-09, 00:43:
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-08, 22:23:
xcomcmdr wrote on 2021-06-08, 04:18:

Not really, no. It's very easy to setup. I suspect a lot of people use it successfully.

Not when you have to jump through additonal hoops. I had the exact same setup on vanilla DOSBox and it turned into a week long ordeal trying to get the exact same game and installation to properly run on DOXBox-X.

Like I said. Your experience is only your own.

Your games were previously set up for one emulator (vanilla DOSBox in this case) already. Why would you even expect them to run in another emulator (DOSBox-X in this case) without any changes at all? They are different emulators, and even if you try to run pre-configured games in different real DOS machines they probably require some changes too, not that all of them can run directly without any changes. The reason is very simple - not all machines are exactly the same, so different configurations are generally expected. Think about why most games come with some setup programs, instead of just some fixed settings? This simply because there are always different configurations, and games need to be configured to support different systems. These apply in general, not just this specific case of course. Similarly, if your games were previously set up for DOSBox-X, you probably need to make several changes to make them run in vanilla DOSBox too. In such case one can also say you need to “jump through additional hoops to make them work in vanilla DOSBox” according to your logic.

Because it's the same code base under the same moniker? And if a setup file is required to avoid shipping a set of default settings on other platforms then why you you ship with a set of defaults? Seems like quite the contradiction to be making...

Not to mention, settings within the config that do the exact opposite of what they state they do and you having specifically stated elsewhere that config files from different versions of DOSBox are compatible.

So no, it's no my logic, but rather yours that's created this situation which you seem to be resorting to defend with hypocrisy.

Reply 15 of 20, by Avenger

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Dominus wrote on 2021-06-09, 04:26:
I'm going to split this -X discussion off this thread later today. "Your experience is also exclusive to only you." <- consider […]
Show full quote

I'm going to split this -X discussion off this thread later today.
"Your experience is also exclusive to only you."
<- consider this: everyone figures it out and is fine with -X being different than vanilla Dosbox, because it is NOT vanilla Dosbox.
You seem to carry a grudge ever since it turned out your -X problems were caused by not realizing this. *Seem* is rather mild because it is blatant obvious in everyone of your posts.
Just let it go!

There's no grudge. Just a developer that can't handle critisim and keeps running to defend his project after not being abe to understand that not every user is going to have the exact same experience. I mean all you have to do is look at the over a thousand issues reported on thier github to understand their project isn't as perfect as they would make it seem from their arguments.

Reply 16 of 20, by Wengier

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-09, 22:34:
Because it's the same code base under the same moniker? And if a setup file is required to avoid shipping a set of default setti […]
Show full quote
Wengier wrote on 2021-06-09, 00:43:
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-08, 22:23:

Not when you have to jump through additonal hoops. I had the exact same setup on vanilla DOSBox and it turned into a week long ordeal trying to get the exact same game and installation to properly run on DOXBox-X.

Like I said. Your experience is only your own.

Your games were previously set up for one emulator (vanilla DOSBox in this case) already. Why would you even expect them to run in another emulator (DOSBox-X in this case) without any changes at all? They are different emulators, and even if you try to run pre-configured games in different real DOS machines they probably require some changes too, not that all of them can run directly without any changes. The reason is very simple - not all machines are exactly the same, so different configurations are generally expected. Think about why most games come with some setup programs, instead of just some fixed settings? This simply because there are always different configurations, and games need to be configured to support different systems. These apply in general, not just this specific case of course. Similarly, if your games were previously set up for DOSBox-X, you probably need to make several changes to make them run in vanilla DOSBox too. In such case one can also say you need to “jump through additional hoops to make them work in vanilla DOSBox” according to your logic.

Because it's the same code base under the same moniker? And if a setup file is required to avoid shipping a set of default settings on other platforms then why you you ship with a set of defaults? Seems like quite the contradiction to be making...

Not to mention, settings within the config that do the exact opposite of what they state they do and you having specifically stated elsewhere that config files from different versions of DOSBox are compatible.

So no, it's no my logic, but rather yours that's created this situation which you seem to be resorting to defend with hypocrisy.

No, there have been HUGE changes in the code base over the last decade of separate developments (even though there are also many communications between the projects). The project names are different, and they share part of the name to indicate the common history by the time the fork took place long time ago. In many cases a complete new setup is not required, but this is not guaranteed. Just think of them as separate projects with both many similarities and but also many many differences. And no, I never said that config files from DOSBox-X and DOSBox are compatible (in the sense they are fully interchangeably). Instead I only said config files from different versions of DOSBox-X are generally compatible, and mentioned that config files from DOSBox-X and DOSBox use roughly the same formats (and clearly, the mere fact that they use the same formats does not mean they are interchangeable; there are also many other software using config files with similar formats, but this does not make them compatible with each another).

Clearly you are the one who is making false claims and everyone else is disagreeing with you, both here and the issue tracker elsewhere.

Last edited by Wengier on 2021-06-10, 02:25. Edited 4 times in total.

Reply 17 of 20, by Wengier

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-09, 22:38:
Dominus wrote on 2021-06-09, 04:26:
I'm going to split this -X discussion off this thread later today. "Your experience is also exclusive to only you." <- consider […]
Show full quote

I'm going to split this -X discussion off this thread later today.
"Your experience is also exclusive to only you."
<- consider this: everyone figures it out and is fine with -X being different than vanilla Dosbox, because it is NOT vanilla Dosbox.
You seem to carry a grudge ever since it turned out your -X problems were caused by not realizing this. *Seem* is rather mild because it is blatant obvious in everyone of your posts.
Just let it go!

There's no grudge. Just a developer that can't handle critisim and keeps running to defend his project after not being abe to understand that not every user is going to have the exact same experience. I mean all you have to do is look at the over a thousand issues reported on thier github to understand their project isn't as perfect as they would make it seem from their arguments.

No, and in fact it is the case that you have tried to argue with EVERYONE when everyone else disagrees with you, which happened both in the forum and elsewhere. The discussion of the Duke Nukem game sound in the DOSBox-X issue tracker is a very good example showing this. "Over a thousand issues reported on thier github"? You are so funny here. Issue trackers are not only for reporting bugs, but also for making suggestions, discussions for new features, and many more. No project is perfect of course, and reporting bugs are completely fine and even encouraged, but the problem is apparently your attribute. If you have a problem with the project then you are free to either report the bug you encountered or not use the software, instead of making arguments with everyone else. Moreover, it is fine to make cristism of something, but it is supposed to make sense too, or other people will also make opinions about it. And if everyone else does not agree with what you said, consider that it is probably your own fault instead of everyone else's.

Reply 18 of 20, by Avenger

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Wengier wrote on 2021-06-10, 00:56:
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-09, 22:34:
Because it's the same code base under the same moniker? And if a setup file is required to avoid shipping a set of default setti […]
Show full quote
Wengier wrote on 2021-06-09, 00:43:

Your games were previously set up for one emulator (vanilla DOSBox in this case) already. Why would you even expect them to run in another emulator (DOSBox-X in this case) without any changes at all? They are different emulators, and even if you try to run pre-configured games in different real DOS machines they probably require some changes too, not that all of them can run directly without any changes. The reason is very simple - not all machines are exactly the same, so different configurations are generally expected. Think about why most games come with some setup programs, instead of just some fixed settings? This simply because there are always different configurations, and games need to be configured to support different systems. These apply in general, not just this specific case of course. Similarly, if your games were previously set up for DOSBox-X, you probably need to make several changes to make them run in vanilla DOSBox too. In such case one can also say you need to “jump through additional hoops to make them work in vanilla DOSBox” according to your logic.

Because it's the same code base under the same moniker? And if a setup file is required to avoid shipping a set of default settings on other platforms then why you you ship with a set of defaults? Seems like quite the contradiction to be making...

Not to mention, settings within the config that do the exact opposite of what they state they do and you having specifically stated elsewhere that config files from different versions of DOSBox are compatible.

So no, it's no my logic, but rather yours that's created this situation which you seem to be resorting to defend with hypocrisy.

No, there have been HUGE changes in the code base over the last decade of separate developments (even though there are also many communications between the projects). The project names are different, and they share part of the name to indicate the common history by the time the fork took place long time ago. In many cases a complete new setup is not required, but this is not guaranteed. Just think of them as separate projects with both many similarities and but also many many differences. And no, I never said that config files from DOSBox-X and DOSBox are compatible (in the sense they are fully interchangeably). Instead I only said config files from different versions of DOSBox-X are generally compatible, and mentioned that config files from DOSBox-X and DOSBox use roughly the same formats (and clearly, the mere fact that they use the same formats does not mean they are interchangeable; there are also many other software using config files with similar formats, but this does not make them compatible with each another).

Clearly you are the one who is making false claims and everyone else is disagreeing with you, both here and the issue tracker elsewhere.

Wengier wrote on 2021-06-10, 01:03:
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-09, 22:38:
Dominus wrote on 2021-06-09, 04:26:
I'm going to split this -X discussion off this thread later today. "Your experience is also exclusive to only you." <- consider […]
Show full quote

I'm going to split this -X discussion off this thread later today.
"Your experience is also exclusive to only you."
<- consider this: everyone figures it out and is fine with -X being different than vanilla Dosbox, because it is NOT vanilla Dosbox.
You seem to carry a grudge ever since it turned out your -X problems were caused by not realizing this. *Seem* is rather mild because it is blatant obvious in everyone of your posts.
Just let it go!

There's no grudge. Just a developer that can't handle critisim and keeps running to defend his project after not being abe to understand that not every user is going to have the exact same experience. I mean all you have to do is look at the over a thousand issues reported on thier github to understand their project isn't as perfect as they would make it seem from their arguments.

No, and in fact it is the case that you have tried to argue with EVERYONE when everyone else disagrees with you, which happened both in the forum and elsewhere. The discussion of the Duke Nukem game sound in the DOSBox-X issue tracker is a very good example showing this. "Over a thousand issues reported on thier github"? You are so funny here. Issue trackers are not only for reporting bugs, but also for making suggestions, discussions for new features, and many more. No project is perfect of course, and reporting bugs are completely fine and even encouraged, but the problem is apparently your attribute. If you have a problem with the project then you are free to either report the bug you encountered or not use the software, instead of making arguments with everyone else. Moreover, it is fine to make cristism of something, but it is supposed to make sense too, or other people will also make opinions about it. And if everyone else does not agree with what you said, consider that it is probably your own fault instead of everyone else's.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many incoherent contradictions in a single block of text before. Congrats on the spindoctoring. No need to move the goals posts, we both know what you’ve stated before. At the end of the day your project is still called “DOSBOX”.

And just to set the record straight, you might want to look at HOW this discussion transpired. I made a request to another project, your project which I’ve had multiple negative experiences with, (see Terminator Skynet else where for a perfect example) was suggested instead. I explained that it wasn’t a good option and then you tried to jump down my throat just like every other time I’ve mentioned DOSBOX-x without overwhelming positive praise. Another issue that I didn't bother to bring up is why the hell any renderer outside of opengl breaks mouse movement? But apparently DOSBOX-x by virtue of having the "X" at the end should have completely different rendering behavior as well?......

So before you go on another rant as a biased developer, maybe look back on your past actions over the last while and understand where your user base is coming from.

Reply 19 of 20, by Wengier

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-10, 03:01:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many incoherent contradictions in a single block of text before. Congrats on the spindoctoring. […]
Show full quote
Wengier wrote on 2021-06-10, 00:56:
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-09, 22:34:

Because it's the same code base under the same moniker? And if a setup file is required to avoid shipping a set of default settings on other platforms then why you you ship with a set of defaults? Seems like quite the contradiction to be making...

Not to mention, settings within the config that do the exact opposite of what they state they do and you having specifically stated elsewhere that config files from different versions of DOSBox are compatible.

So no, it's no my logic, but rather yours that's created this situation which you seem to be resorting to defend with hypocrisy.

No, there have been HUGE changes in the code base over the last decade of separate developments (even though there are also many communications between the projects). The project names are different, and they share part of the name to indicate the common history by the time the fork took place long time ago. In many cases a complete new setup is not required, but this is not guaranteed. Just think of them as separate projects with both many similarities and but also many many differences. And no, I never said that config files from DOSBox-X and DOSBox are compatible (in the sense they are fully interchangeably). Instead I only said config files from different versions of DOSBox-X are generally compatible, and mentioned that config files from DOSBox-X and DOSBox use roughly the same formats (and clearly, the mere fact that they use the same formats does not mean they are interchangeable; there are also many other software using config files with similar formats, but this does not make them compatible with each another).

Clearly you are the one who is making false claims and everyone else is disagreeing with you, both here and the issue tracker elsewhere.

Wengier wrote on 2021-06-10, 01:03:
Avenger wrote on 2021-06-09, 22:38:

There's no grudge. Just a developer that can't handle critisim and keeps running to defend his project after not being abe to understand that not every user is going to have the exact same experience. I mean all you have to do is look at the over a thousand issues reported on thier github to understand their project isn't as perfect as they would make it seem from their arguments.

No, and in fact it is the case that you have tried to argue with EVERYONE when everyone else disagrees with you, which happened both in the forum and elsewhere. The discussion of the Duke Nukem game sound in the DOSBox-X issue tracker is a very good example showing this. "Over a thousand issues reported on thier github"? You are so funny here. Issue trackers are not only for reporting bugs, but also for making suggestions, discussions for new features, and many more. No project is perfect of course, and reporting bugs are completely fine and even encouraged, but the problem is apparently your attribute. If you have a problem with the project then you are free to either report the bug you encountered or not use the software, instead of making arguments with everyone else. Moreover, it is fine to make cristism of something, but it is supposed to make sense too, or other people will also make opinions about it. And if everyone else does not agree with what you said, consider that it is probably your own fault instead of everyone else's.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many incoherent contradictions in a single block of text before. Congrats on the spindoctoring. No need to move the goals posts, we both know what you’ve stated before. At the end of the day your project is still called “DOSBOX”.

And just to set the record straight, you might want to look at HOW this discussion transpired. I made a request to another project, your project which I’ve had multiple negative experiences with, (see Terminator Skynet else where for a perfect example) was suggested instead. I explained that it wasn’t a good option and then you tried to jump down my throat just like every other time I’ve mentioned DOSBOX-x without overwhelming positive praise. Another issue that I didn't bother to bring up is why the hell any renderer outside of opengl breaks mouse movement? But apparently DOSBOX-x by virtue of having the "X" at the end should have completely different rendering behavior as well?......

So before you go on another rant as a biased developer, maybe look back on your past actions over the last while and understand where your user base is coming from.

What you said is clearly wrong. The project you are talking about is not "DOSBOX", but "DOSBox-X". It may also be named with another name (if agreed by the project), but the point is that its name is not "DOSBOX" as you said. This says everything already. (Just to give you another concrete example, there are two well-known programming languages in the world called Java and Javascript. Are they same programming language? The answer is clearly no).

Because of this, everything else you said is simply baseless. If you have any issues with the project, it is completely fine (I was not able to reproduce them any way, and indeed it turned out to be so difficult to even ask you for the config file you used); I don't need to hear "overwhelming positive praise" (which does not make too much sense any way), and in fact I asked you to stop using it and try a different emulator instead long time ago (in the issue tracker). But you continued to use it for some reason, and this was apparently your own choice. As a result, what you said is completely nonsense, not even worth refuting (but if you really want, we can look more at your past actions and see how you are a biased user).