dosbox vs. wine

[Doug]

On 03/08/2011 01:40 AM, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:24:30 -0500
> Doug<dmcgarrett at optonline.net>  wrote:
>
>> For general purpose use--not games--which program is better, in these
>> respects:  handles more DOS programs; more easily accessible to
>> peripherals, like diskdrives, including floppies; less complicated to
>> get working; less complicated to use.  Would either one run Win 95 or
>> Win 98,
>> if required?  (And if I could still find the disks!)  Comments
>> solicited on the questions I forgot to ask.  (No, don't ask "why."
>> The answer is technical programs that have no Linux counterpart.)
>>
>> The computer on which I would use it has an AMD Sempron running at
>> 1500 MHz, 2 GB ram, and an EVGA AGP video card with 528 MB ram.
>>
>> Thanx--doug
>>
> Least complex would be a VirtualBox or VMware installation of the
> dreaded, "Windows," OS.  If it is for work than you should charge the
> cost to your company/business.  If it isn't, then you should look for a
> Linux counterpart of consider seeking funding for such, yourself.
> There are plenty of programmers who would love to work for you writing
> whatever you wish to have.
>
> Cybe R. Wizard
Well, it's for myself, and I'm not going to try and rewrite or pay someone
to do that.  While I would rather have the programs run on Linux, I do
own and sometimes use a Windows machine.  Even there I may need
a dosbox--after Win 98, Windows has not been all that friendly to old
DOS routines.

As far as I'm aware, there are no Linux programs designed for analysis
or synthesis of microwave circuits.  Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
In addition, some of the programs were locally written in BASIC, and
my previous experience trying to get anything written in GW BASIC to
run on Linux's BASIC programs says it can't be done--at least not by me.

--doug

-- 
Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley