«

[Scatty]

It's quite simple, really. You don't mount the game folder in DosBox, instead you mount the drive itself, like
mount c c:\
Then you go to the mounted drive c: with simple
c:
Switch to the game folder manually with
cd gamefolder
Replace gamefolder with the actual folder name. Let's say it's located in c:\games\Gold, then it would be
cd games\gold
That should fix the issue with saving, because then the game will be able to find it's folder to save into. In the end the entire command row should look like that (for putting at the end of dosbox.conf file for running at startup each time you start DosBox):

mount c c:\
c:
cd games\gold

[Eagle of Fire]

About that, I always personally found moronic the warning message when you mount c:\. I of course understand why people who never used DOS before could be confused and it's always better for a programmer to protect himself with those warnings... But I'm pretty sure oldschoolers like me think the same thing.

There is no difference at all in DOSBox execution if you mount your c:\ drive, and there is no more danger in execution than if you're mounting any other subfolder...

If you never use the delete command in DOSBox, I suggest to everybody who is listening to downright mount their c:\ drive directly. I simply can't fathom how you could destroy your hard disk using DOSBox if you don't to it directly yourself with a command... And it might also prevent errors the user have no way to understand.

[dosraider]

I will play devil's advocate EOF. :cheesy:

Is there any reason why you shouldn't mount a dir (c:\oldgames) as C: ?
No, no reason whatsoever.
It has only advantages to mount a dir as C:.
For starters it will keep your C: a bit clean, as some old dosgames saves directly on c: (doom ...) and some installers wants to alter config.sys .....
(Don't forget that you can run dosbox in W98, do you really want those old installers alter config/autoexec?)
Plus it makes a complete mess of your c: .

If you not on a admin account FORGET mounting/writing directly to your C:.

And most important: do you really want those n00bs working on C:? I don't, really not.

Never been on Linux or Unix EOF? ya know, those OS that everyone consider much more secure then Windows? One of the reasons is that you don't work on your root. Forget installing dosbox/mounting using your root on those.
But yeah, lets all mount our C directly in Windows, so that we all can whine a bit more how unsecure Windows is ... LOLZ.

Never been on Vista yet EOF? MS begins (FINALLY!!!) doing the same way, secured. ('Bout time if you ask me). Vista gonna love a C: mount, really.

And add some more bla bla bla .... :laugh:

Of course my question still is:
Is there any advantage or reason why you should mount C:? No.
None whatsoever. Period.

Further info: Vogons.

[Eagle of Fire]

None of your arguments make sense, and doesn't apply to either point...

There is several advantage to mount c:\ directly in DOSBox. For one, if you somehow install or run the install of an old game in windows then run the game in DOSbox (something that newbies are prone to do), some games which "catch" the full installation path in their config files will refuse to work. Regulars won't have much problem with this, as they'll understand they need to install the game directly in DOSBox first, but most people won't even begin to understand why it's not working.

Second, it's only natural to start at c:\ in Windows, just as it is even more natural in DOS. Never in my life I have seen a DOS tree with games starting directly in the c:\ root directory. Some specific games will ask for it, but otherwise people usually always class their games one way or another in subdirectories. If I mount my c:\ drive directly, I know what I'll get and where I'm going. No need for superfluous powder dust here.

Third, I've never seen a MS-Dos game screwing an autoexec.bat or a config.sys, nor is it possible. I've seen plenty of them add lines in those files but nothing even remotely serious and which can't be solved, if there is ever a problem which I doubt greatly, by removed said lines. You got exactly the same remote chance of running into a virus or whatnot by running a file in DOSBox than you'd have running any random file you get from the internet. No point arguing that...

I also really don't understand why it would even matter that those "noobs" work on c:\ instead of a subfolder. There is no difference whatsoever. The only way they could screw their computer up would be by deleting random stuff around, and let me tell you that if someone is dense enough to do that in DOSBox, they are way more likely to do it in Windows beforehand as it's way easier to achieve in Windows with the graphic interface than under a command type DOS emulator. In Windows all you need to do is press delete...

On a side note, if an old game wants to alter config.sys and autoexec.bat, you should let them if you're running an old computer. It won't matter the slighlest bit in DOSBox (except if you want to try running the game thru Windows later on, which is a moot point anyways for a noob) and those games are likely not to work under a native DOS environement if you don't let them alter those files and reboot...

[dosraider]

None of your arguments make sense, and doesn't apply to either point...
Same goes for your arguments I'm affraid. :laugh:
There is no reason why you shouldn't use a directory to mount as virtual C:
And there is no reason whatsoever to mount your C: directly.

Except one point: you don't run dosbox under Dos but under Windows.
And you advise people who have clearely no idea what they are doing.
That gives you at least some responsability.
You aren't giving advise to people who know what they are doing, those don't ask help, they simply don't need it.

Anyway, this has been discuted longely and elaborate on Vogons, and I honnestly aren't very eager to go over the same yes-no ping pong here again.

BTW, you really haven't tried that root mount in Vista ...... or Linux or a Mac, did you? Or a non-admin account in XP/Vista .....

Oh whatever, it ain't a capital sin to mount the root anyway, but maybe it's better safe then sorry?

[The Fifth Horseman]

If you never use the delete command in DOSBox, I suggest to everybody who is listening to downright mount their c:\ drive directly. I simply can't fathom how you could destroy your hard disk using DOSBox if you don't to it directly yourself with a command... And it might also prevent errors the user have no way to understand.

There is one danger though - if the user tries to set up Windows 3.x under DOSBox, with the root of their C drive mounted as DOSBox drive C, they will overwrite part of the contents of the Windows directory, irreversibly crippling their system.

[Eagle of Fire]

We're not talking about the same thing at all though. The guy here who is asking for information want to know how to run a game. With an installation of Win 3.1, we're talking about something which would usually require a dual boot and all that stuff, which I would not recommend to do in DOSBox anyways.

BTW, you really haven't tried that root mount in Vista ...... or Linux or a Mac, did you? Or a non-admin account in XP/Vista .....

No, I didn't. I never used a Mac and never used Vista, and I'm pretty glad about the Vista part. However, people should expect to have weird problems when using programs which are not made for their operating system. Care to enlighten me a little more on the subject? I thought that DOSBox wasn't supposed to work at all on non-admin account anyways?

For the rest DosRaider, it's not that I don't want to acknowledge what you're saying... But for me it only look like your whole argument is based on the idea that "noobs should not be given the opportunity to screw up". Which is, I believe, the best way to stop them from learning from themselves, and the main reason why I hate the newbie friendliness of WinXP since it in practice prevent you from doing anything at all. I played myself as a noob in the root directory of MS-DOS, Win 3.0 and 3.1, Win 95, Win 98 and WinXP since countless years... And I only screwed up once in my very early days, on my 386... That didn't stop me from doing anything.