Dropbox - Ending Support for Windows XP on August 29th

[HR Solutions]

Lol yep the new Windows is crap - that's why I went Apple

[AndyD]

I also still run XP on some of my machines. The latest Microsoft OS I run on anything I own is win7. I also use several linux based OS's on other devices. The reason I don't upgrade to later versions of Microsoft OS's is the same reason I wouldn't touch anything Apple if you paid me; I point blank refuse to be a sheep and let my operating systems dictate how my devices must and must not be used.

[irneb]

Agreed, there are still "some" stuff where you "require" XP. I've even got some older programs refusing to run on NT-based Windows (i.e. I have to keep a W98 virtual machine in a "back-drawer" somewhere, even XP is too "new" for that).

As for alternatives to dropbox. Similar I've used before is Box, Google Drive, Yandex Disc, etc. Not sure if all of them come with clients for XP (or older), I know Yandex has clients for all major OSs (and I find it works nicer than even DropBox's).

If you still require a dropbox account, but need another program to sync your files ... you could try http://rclone.org/. It's a command-line only thing, but you can always save those commands to a .BAT file on your desktop and double-click it to upload to / download from the cloud server. Nice thing is it works with a lot more than just dropbox. Not to mention, it runs on more OSs than just Microsoft's (I've even got it running in Linux). And its default is to only do a sync (in only one specified direction) at only the time you tell it to - i.e. it doesn't constantly sync all the time (eating up both bandwidth and processing power). I find it more controllable, but more technical - perhaps not for everyone.

For older than XP, I'm not too sure. Rclone requires a Python interpreter - haven't attempted to get one of those installed into something like W98 or even Dos. Of course you could attempt using FreeDOS insetad of some 20 year+ old DOS version. I know they've made a PythonD interpreter for it, so rclone just "might" work there.

Not sure what you're on about DosBox giving only a small "screen", you could change to fullscreen and see it the same way you'd have done if DOS was running directly on the computer. Though I find other VM systems more capable - also meaning I need only one such system for multiple VM-OSs.

Personally though, I use such old OSs inside of Virtual Machines (e.g. my W98 and XP runs inside a VirtualBox on my personal linux server - using VBox's VNC remote desktoping so I can work on it from another computer, my W7 and W10 machines run in VMWare-Player under my Linux personal computer - in this case VMWare since graphics is simply much better through it than VBox). Most (if not all) VMs allow you to ajust the VM's screen size - even up to full screen.

That way it's seen as a normal computer (as the VM's network settings are changed to bridged mode) on my router's network. Able to share files / folders from/to others. Then I turn off internet connection to it (through the router's firewall settings). So rather than have it link to such on-line file sharing directly, I have another computer (usually a Linux based one) to do the downloads into a folder which I share on the network. Tends to mean I don't even need no stinking AV for stuff like Windows - since it never even "sees" the internet.

You could do similar even without a router-based internet connection. E.g. if your internet is directly connected to your computer (say something like a USB mobile dongle), you could set the virtual machine's network to link-host-only. That way the OS inside the VM only sees whatever folders you shared from the main OS. The default NAT based network would share whatever connections the host OS has. You should be able to run even DOS on it, I have run FreeDOS inside both VBox/VMWare, though I don't have use for it anymore.

[Justloadit]

Not sure what you're on about DosBox giving only a small "screen", you could change to fullscreen and see it the same way you'd have done if DOS was running directly on the computer. Though I find other VM systems more capable - also meaning I need only one such system for multiple VM-OSs.

The DOS screen is about 3inches by 4 inches, and can not be expanded to fit the monitor screen. You can move it around, by you can not make it larger than the 3 x 4inches. You can zoom in and out with in the DosBox screen, but this is unworkable.

[irneb]

The DOS screen is about 3inches by 4 inches, and can not be expanded to fit the monitor screen. You can move it around, by you can not make it larger than the 3 x 4inches. You can zoom in and out with in the DosBox screen, but this is unworkable.

Pressing Alt+Enter swaps between windowed mode and full-screen. Otherwise you can adjust the conf file: http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Dosbox.conf

Though DOSBox emulates a S3 video card ... i.e. similar capabilities to what you got in those old video cards like CGA/EGA/Hercules/VGA. They had their limits and those limits similarly apply to DosBox.

Remember ... DOS is firstly a Text-based user interface (i.e. TUI instead of GUI). The program you run on top of it may use graphics, but DOS itself just displays text (usually 80x25 characters, whatever those character's font sizes are). If your program uses some form of graphics display, then I'd advise you go to full screen instead (i.e. press the Alt+Enter key combination).

Though you should really try to use something less constrained. I'd suggest you at least try something like VirtualBox with FreeDOS. Both of them would only "cost" you the download and time spent on installation. Not "too" much to loose for trying something out ... I think. E.g. http://freedos.sourceforge.net/wiki/...php/VirtualBox

DOSBox is mainly meant for old games, since it includes a CPU throttle - i.e. some of those old games didn't use a timer, instead just relied on the CPU not having much of a clock-speed. I.e. if you run that game on newer computers (than say an old 8086) everything flashes past in a blur.

[Justloadit]

I remember trying all those things, and spent time on Google finding solutions. Eventually gave up, and changed to OS to XP professional as I have a couple of original ones which I bought on special.

[irneb]

I remember trying all those things, and spent time on Google finding solutions. Eventually gave up, and changed to OS to XP professional as I have a couple of original ones which I bought on special.

If what you're concerned with is that a CMD window in XP having wider lines and more lines than the DOS standard 80x25, then that's because in XP you're no longer in a "true" DOS environment.

That limitation you find in DOSBox is a DOS limitation. There were additave programs which you could install into DOS to increase its limits. But usually you didn't bother, as the programs you ran did their own thing anyway. And since DOSBox is quite literally attempting to make a "true" DOS, instead of a DOS window into Windows' command-line, those limits then also carry through.

So yes, XP is probably your better alternative here ... that is if its DOS emulation (note XP is based on NT - thus it's not running on top of DOS like W98 used to do) actually works for your program(s). Personally I've found issues with even XP's variant of DOS, and had to revert to W98 instead (i.e. Windows is simply a GUI running on top of a fully fledged DOS instead of a DOS emulation running inside of a WinNT kernel).

I would however suggest you run your XP through a virtual machine, just to be more "safe". Instead of having it run directly on the hardware. XP is discontinued, thus any and all bugs it had will never get fixed. So if some black-hat cracker decides to write yet another virus / spyware / ransomware / etc. for some fault in WinXP, you've got no chance of such ever being stopped. At least with a VM it means your entire PC isn't screwed over all at once. Worst case would be that just the VM is damaged. And if you set it up right, you may even protect your XP from getting infected instead of trying to fix afterwards.

I.e. make use of a more current OS (need not even be a Windows) for your internet connection so you can sync with dropbox. Probably add some intermediary AV (like ClamAV) to check those files so they don't contaminate anything further. Then have your XP virtual machine able to link to that shared folder through SMB/CIFS shares - i.e. it can see them as a network connected drive. This would quite literally be like running XP on a separate computer which is firewalled from the internet, only able to see some shared folder from a local server - which itself can connect to the internet. Only with such VM you only require one computer, not two. Of course it's slightly less convenient if all you want is XP and whatever programs you run on it, but it's safer than even an AV running on top of XP.