Quote:
So, what are those settings which Boxer misses and what real practical purposes do they serve? However given tha D-Fend causes unstability and other nasty stuff, if I were to expand from Boxer I think I'd go for plain DOSBox like most of you, I think I could easily hadle it if I just tried. It's only that I used Boxer the first time I used DOSBox, and I haven't needed nor bothered to learn more since then.
[/b]
|
Well DOSBox sets missing items to it's default value and those are very reasonable.
The scaler section has lot of interresting scalers in them (which boxer is missing)
Quote:
What are you linux? Isn't there a front end for linux or are you too hard core for front ends?
[/b]
|
The discussion was/is about Boxer and D-Fend. Hence my remark was totally valid. There are frontends for linux as well. (All of them being cross-platform actually.) Using a frontend has not always to do with the hard coreness of it's user. I know of very advanged DOSBox users which have over 1000 profiles setup in D-Fend and burned the whole tree to a DVD (combined with D-Fend and DOSbox).
It's just a matter on how much time you want to invest in keeping your old games playable.
The idea of zips is interresting. It brings up a question on who should handle the zips...
Should DOSBox get that intelligence or is it clearly a task for a frontend ?
PS: I've never seen any proof of D-Fend making games inplayable. I think it might have been configuration problem by the user.