CaptainKremin: I, myself, am rather surprised GOG have opted for a DosBox shell for this, especially when a windows installer does exist... DosBox might be easier for GOG to use, but it doesn't always produced the better product for us, their customers...
...
Where a windows installer exists, that should be used first, over a DosBox shell.
Are there any technical reasons why DosBox was used instead of properly fixing the installer apart from ease of use for GOG? Are there many other games with a windows installer that GOG have opted to use DosBox instead for?
Selecting a DOS version (to be used with DOSBox) over a Windows version is more future-proof, and usually guarantees compatibility with a much wider assortment of Windows versions, graphics drivers, CPU models and speeds, memory configurations etc., because DOSBox hides such details from the game. Take for example all the older Windows games having problems with multiple CPU cores (e.g. Broken Sword 4 on quad cores?), requiring running as admin, requiring running them with compatibility modes etc... no such headaches whatsoever when running the DOS version through DOSBox.
The DOS versions will run much more probably also on future Windows releases (Win8, 9, 10, 11...) or are pretty easy to get to run on them, as long as DOSBox runs on them as well. No such guarantees whatsoever for any old Windows games, since they always depend on your HW drivers' backwards compatibility etc.
Also, I'm pretty sure Mac and Linux gamers prefer the DOS versions as well, runs better on their systems too.
After all, I think lots of compatibility problems had been reported from GOG Dungeon Keeper 2, which happens to be a Windows version. If there had been a DOS version, it probably would have had much less problems.