Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Eric Auer]

To add yet another personal view to this thread:

> [...] Win10 and Linux.  I have an assortment of old DOS apps that I
> run using DOSBox, which was designed to let folks run old DOS games
> on machines that aren't PCs.

But also PCs that just do not run DOS as main OS.

> [...] 23" 1920x1080 monitor, and don't *want* stuff full screen. [...]

Similar here. Running DOS in windows in another (multitasking,
internet, multi core, big memory and so on) operating system
gives me the advantages of both. Running classic software
while also having all the modern stuff and multiple windows.

Sticking all the modern features into DOS itself would turn
DOS into something that is NOT DOS but in the best case like
OS/2 and in the worst case some very niche "Windows mini me".

Cheers  Eric


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Paolo Vincenzo Olivo]

> The question is whether you need DOS > itself to do that.

> I run Win10 and Linux. I have an > assortment of old DOS apps that I
> run using DOSBox, which was designed > to let folks run old DOS games on
> machines that aren't PCs.

> Under Windows, I use vDOSPlus, which > is a fork of DOSBox specifically
> intended for character mode business > apps, and drops the specialized
> graphics and sound support games > required. Under Linux, I use DOSBox
> itself. For that matter, I have an > assortment of old DOS stuff up on
> my Android tablet, using an Android port > of DOSBox.

> (And I have a 23" 1920x1080 monitor, > and don't *want* stuff full screen.)

> Most folks just want to run old DOS > applications, and you don't need
> DOS itself to do so.

Then what was to hold you back from unsuscribing from this mailing list? DOS 
software? There are other communities still maintaining some, which would 
appreciate cooperation. Running FreeDOS on Dosemu/QEMU/Bochs/VBox is a thing, 
advertising Dosbox as only acceptable solution while stating DOS system are 
totally useless nowadays, completely defies the context and the purpose of this 
community

On 18 January 2018 20:39:04 CET, dmccunney  wrote:

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Ray Davison  wrote:
 A small side trip about real work in real DOS.

 Since Win2K, my desktops have had a 2G, FAT16 primary at the front of the
 first HDD, carrying DOS and a boot manager, and two Win partitions, both
 logicals.  Every other partition is a logical.  Using that layout I am now
 running FreeDOS 1.1 and Win7-64 - and yes Win7-64 are on logicals.

I've multi-booted with FreeDOS as one of the OSes.

 My DOS accounting program was abandoned by it's creator in 1995 and I am
 still using it.  I have looked at many other accounting programs since then
 and have been unimpressed by most and appalled by some.  A big thing I like
 about doing accounting under DOS is that I am not doing accounting in a
 window, my PC becomes an accounting machine.  It takes the entire screen,
 the text is big and bold, and it is fast.  And three years of data files fit
 on a floppy.

The question is whether you need DOS itself to do that.

I run Win10 and Linux.  I have an assortment of old DOS apps that I
run using DOSBox, which was designed to let folks run old DOS games on
machines that aren't PCs.

Under Windows, I use vDOSPlus, which is a fork of DOSBox specifically
intended for character mode business apps, and drops the specialized
graphics and sound support games required.  Under Linux, I use DOSBox
itself.  For that matter, I have an assortment of old DOS stuff up on
my Android tablet, using an Android port of DOSBox.

(And I have a 23" 1920x1080 monitor, and don't *want* stuff full screen.)

Most folks just want to run old DOS applications, and you don't need
DOS itself to do so.

 And I am still using WordPerfect 6.2B for DOS.  Similar to accounting, my PC
 becomes a word processor.  I have kept rather current versions of MS Office,
 but use them mostly to work other peoples files.

 A couple decades ago, Bill Macrone of PC Magazine said if you want to multi
 task use multiple machines.  If I want to access a bank on-line while doing
 accounting I have a Win laptop sitting at my elbow.

 So I am just hopping to keep the current stuff running.

Your setup seems to suit you, and should continue to work.

 Ray
__
Dennis



Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot


Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[dmccunney]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Ray Davison  wrote:
> A small side trip about real work in real DOS.
>
> Since Win2K, my desktops have had a 2G, FAT16 primary at the front of the
> first HDD, carrying DOS and a boot manager, and two Win partitions, both
> logicals.  Every other partition is a logical.  Using that layout I am now
> running FreeDOS 1.1 and Win7-64 - and yes Win7-64 are on logicals.

I've multi-booted with FreeDOS as one of the OSes.

> My DOS accounting program was abandoned by it's creator in 1995 and I am
> still using it.  I have looked at many other accounting programs since then
> and have been unimpressed by most and appalled by some.  A big thing I like
> about doing accounting under DOS is that I am not doing accounting in a
> window, my PC becomes an accounting machine.  It takes the entire screen,
> the text is big and bold, and it is fast.  And three years of data files fit
> on a floppy.

The question is whether you need DOS itself to do that.

I run Win10 and Linux.  I have an assortment of old DOS apps that I
run using DOSBox, which was designed to let folks run old DOS games on
machines that aren't PCs.

Under Windows, I use vDOSPlus, which is a fork of DOSBox specifically
intended for character mode business apps, and drops the specialized
graphics and sound support games required.  Under Linux, I use DOSBox
itself.  For that matter, I have an assortment of old DOS stuff up on
my Android tablet, using an Android port of DOSBox.

(And I have a 23" 1920x1080 monitor, and don't *want* stuff full screen.)

Most folks just want to run old DOS applications, and you don't need
DOS itself to do so.

> And I am still using WordPerfect 6.2B for DOS.  Similar to accounting, my PC
> becomes a word processor.  I have kept rather current versions of MS Office,
> but use them mostly to work other peoples files.
>
> A couple decades ago, Bill Macrone of PC Magazine said if you want to multi
> task use multiple machines.  If I want to access a bank on-line while doing
> accounting I have a Win laptop sitting at my elbow.
>
> So I am just hopping to keep the current stuff running.

Your setup seems to suit you, and should continue to work.

> Ray
__
Dennis

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Dale E Sterner]

I'm like you I do all on book keeping and wordprocessing
on dos. Its easier to use than windows.
I run my software on cf chips. I plug them into adapters.
I can remove the dos chip and carry it to another computer
to continue my work. Something that can never work
with windows. Tired of working in the basement, unplug
the dos chip and move it upstairs to another computer.

cheers
DS


On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:12:38 -0800 Ray Davison 
writes:
> A small side trip about real work in real DOS.
> 
> Since Win2K, my desktops have had a 2G, FAT16 primary at the front 
> of 
> the first HDD, carrying DOS and a boot manager, and two Win 
> partitions, 
> both logicals.  Every other partition is a logical.  Using that 
> layout I 
> am now running FreeDOS 1.1 and Win7-64 - and yes Win7-64 are on 
> logicals.
> 
> My DOS accounting program was abandoned by it's creator in 1995 and 
> I am 
> still using it.  I have looked at many other accounting programs 
> since 
> then and have been unimpressed by most and appalled by some.  A big 
> thing I like about doing accounting under DOS is that I am not doing 
> 
> accounting in a window, my PC becomes an accounting machine.  It 
> takes 
> the entire screen, the text is big and bold, and it is fast.  And 
> three 
> years of data files fit on a floppy.
> 
> And I am still using WordPerfect 6.2B for DOS.  Similar to 
> accounting, 
> my PC becomes a word processor.  I have kept rather current versions 
> of 
> MS Office, but use them mostly to work other peoples files.
> 
> A couple decades ago, Bill Macrone of PC Magazine said if you want 
> to 
> multi task use multiple machines.  If I want to access a bank 
> on-line 
> while doing accounting I have a Win laptop sitting at my elbow.
> 
> So I am just hopping to keep the current stuff running.
> 
> Ray
> 
>
-
-
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
> 


**
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
***


After Weeks Of Rumors, Joanna Gaines Comes Clean
risingstarnewspaper.com
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5a60cd0cbbae44d0c37d4st03duc

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Ray Davison]

A small side trip about real work in real DOS.

Since Win2K, my desktops have had a 2G, FAT16 primary at the front of 
the first HDD, carrying DOS and a boot manager, and two Win partitions, 
both logicals.  Every other partition is a logical.  Using that layout I 
am now running FreeDOS 1.1 and Win7-64 - and yes Win7-64 are on logicals.


My DOS accounting program was abandoned by it's creator in 1995 and I am 
still using it.  I have looked at many other accounting programs since 
then and have been unimpressed by most and appalled by some.  A big 
thing I like about doing accounting under DOS is that I am not doing 
accounting in a window, my PC becomes an accounting machine.  It takes 
the entire screen, the text is big and bold, and it is fast.  And three 
years of data files fit on a floppy.


And I am still using WordPerfect 6.2B for DOS.  Similar to accounting, 
my PC becomes a word processor.  I have kept rather current versions of 
MS Office, but use them mostly to work other peoples files.


A couple decades ago, Bill Macrone of PC Magazine said if you want to 
multi task use multiple machines.  If I want to access a bank on-line 
while doing accounting I have a Win laptop sitting at my elbow.


So I am just hopping to keep the current stuff running.

Ray

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Samuel V. via Freedos-user]

Re: Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?


http://sourceforge.net/u/udocproject/profile/
I have written a few Assembly code snippets that will be helpful. I should 
probably talk in the development list to see how to think up 32/64-bit native 
implementations.

For example, I have a project called x86 Portable, which allows to reuse the 
exact same assembly code across 16/32/64-bit modes. It is done by simply 
defining register-width-dependent data types like wideword, which will become 
16, 32 or 64-bit in size according to the target CPU mode.

It also includes portabilized assembly functions like movswide which will 
translate into movsw, movsd or movsq depending on the target CPU mode.

That project can be very valuable to implement FreeDOS/BIOS portably across 32 
and 64 bits.

I've also thought that to make the system even more portable, only fully 
standard C language features should be used so that the code can be compiled 
with Borland, GCC, Open Watcom or Visual Studio, and at most C++, but using 
only what could be considered old C or C++, because it will be needed to make 
the system portable across compilers to make it easily self-compiling.

The original FreeDOS could be used as the boot loader with a shell as long as a 
machine has a BIOS, and it in turn could be used to start the 32 or 64-bit 
system, and also will work for being able to return from 32, and maybe 64-bit, 
back to FreeDOS in Real Mode.

Multitasking and protection could be loaded modularly since it's DOS and it 
would work as an operating system that allows full access to the machine, so 
more complex or protective features would probably be better implemented as 
container applications, layers, drivers, modules, but not forcefully always 
loaded by default.

Talking about development, implementing FreeDOS for 32 and 64 bits natively 
could be relatively simple, apart from the work of adapting and writing 
portable C code that only uses simple language features present in all versions 
of the language.

For example, providing DOS-style structures, DOS and BIOS calls, would only be 
a matter of extending all fields, from 8 or 16 bits, to always the register 
width of the target CPU mode.

For example if a BIOS field is now 8 bits, for example for CHS or LBA, in the 
32-bit version it would need to be 32-bit and 64-bit for the 64-bit version, 
unless things like handling wider fields in software or with the FPU is 
integrated in the OS.

In the case of disks, the LBA value would need to be up to 48 bits, or 28 bits, 
because that's what the ATA standard says, so software would need to be able to 
handle 48-bit integers for disks, and probably there will be other cases where 
32-bit code will need to handle numbers bigger than 32-bit in software.

That would be the basic idea, extending small fields to the full register width 
portably. It will surely allow using the same style of BIOS/DOS calls for 
example for much bigger LBA or CHS values.

So the current FreeDOS could be used to boot and to return from 32/64-bit 
modes, and 16-bit programs could be virtualized while running in 32/64-bit 
mode, so it would be useful.

It would be a matter to dedicate 1 year for each key task in the system per 
developer or sub-group of developers.
I've proven to myself that it would be a very fast way to investigate and have 
ready things like better IDE/SATA detection, implementing file systems, 
networking, support for running native vendor drivers, the core base 
implementation to 32/64-bit; each of those things taking 1 year to be well 
implemented into FreeDOS, if possible, with sub-teams working in parallel to 
get more features.

   --
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Eric Auer]

Hi Jim,

>>> I was thinking that it could become necessary to start implementing
>>> a FreeDOS version that included natively its own BIOS...

>> In my opinion: 1. is a very good idea. Something which boots
>> via UEFI and supports GPT and loads Coreboot / Seabios / other...

The difference to running FreeDOS in DOSEMU would be that DOS
will still run on totally native hardware and CPU. Pro: Much
better performance and full hardware control. Contra: None of
the emulated classic devices such as a virtual soundblaster or
NE2000 network card, so DOS will need suitable drivers to use
the actual sound and network chip.

I personally would like to see a plain boot loader which starts
a suitable BIOS-for-UEFI module and then DOS. Of course plenty
of systems already enjoy DOS in DOSEMU inside a Linux distro as
well, but I would not try to create a special lightweight only-
DOSEMU distro of Linux. Most hardware is big enough to run that
as one of many apps on a full install of any normal Linux anyway
so only the "DOS bootstrap tool with EFI module for BIOS" would
make a cool difference to what already exists out there...

Cheers, Eric

PS: Somehow my freedos-user I/O recently defaults to off-list reply?


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Paolo Vincenzo Olivo]

> There should be a simple method to direct > the Linux host system to
> "shutdown" or "reboot" from within the> DOSEmu - but it could be as
> simple as: when DOSEmu exits on virtual  > console #1, present a quick
> menu to do a "soft reboot" (restart   > DOSEmu) or "hard reboot" 
> or
> "shutdown" (both affect the Linux host  > system.)

> In this way, a certain level of abstraction or > virtualization is realized. 
> [..]

It would be nice to try making a Live Linux/Dosemu .img, maybe as soon as I 
have more spare time, I'll dedicate to this for fun  Something like:
- Tiny SliTaz: http://tiny.slitaz.org/,or
- Mininimal Linux Live :http://minimal.linux-bg.org/
Could be a solid base.
A good idea would be to rely on Runit as Init: http://smarden.org/runit/. It's 
versatile and very lightweight, I've used it many times in chroot envs, BSD 
jails and on Void Linux.

Then a light a bootloader compatible with UEFI: SysLinux, as for live FreeDOS? 
And nodm as display manager: https://github.com/spanezz/nodm.

A xorg-minimal installation+xf86-input-libinput for pointers. There wouldn't be 
need for xf86-video-intel/radeon, as KMS driver would be enough if setting 
modesetting as default Xorg display driver: 
https://linux.die.net/man/4/modesetting

Does anyone know which are the dependencies of stsp/dosemu2: 
https://github.com/stsp/dosemu2 ?, in particular if it needs Coreutils and 
glibc? Otherwise I would try compiling it against musl, and avoid Coreutils at 
all in favor of Busybox. Amongst strictly needed additional services, I wonder 
if there would be any: If Dosemu2 required Dbus, it could be launched along 
with Dosemu with consolekit . Then maybe Autofs. The greatest issue In my 
opinion would be how to make a good script to deal with xorg.conf and on all 
possible hardware patterns, especially Nvidia graphics: 10xx series is not and 
won't likely be compatible with nouveau, and vesa does not support them either. 
And this also leads to thevquestion: what to include in the initramfs? I wonder 
how widely known minimal Linux live systems (like Tiny Core Linux) deal with 
these challanges.
Customizing a Live linux image for one's own hardware usage only would 
undoubtedly  a much more trivial task.

From: Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:25:58 AM
To: Discussion and general questions about FreeDOS.
Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS 
system?

> > I was thinking that it could become necessary to start implementing a
> > FreeDOS version that included natively its own BIOS, and that this
> > combination of FreeDOS/BIOS is implemented entirely native as 32 or
> > 64-bit code...
>
> In my opinion: 1. is a very good idea. Something which boots
> via UEFI and supports GPT and loads Coreboot / Seabios / other
> BEFORE DOS, so DOS can enjoy a BIOS! I think support for common
> motherboards is somewhat limited yet, but you could check the
> current status. Maybe there is generic support for a wider range
> of boards, given that DOS only needs a limited set of devices?
>[..]

Sounds like you're suggesting running FreeDOS inside a "box" so that
it can access a BIOS. This sounds similar to an idea posted on our
blog a while back:

http://freedos-project.blogspot.com/2009/04/inside-box.html

>>
Create a very lightweight Linux system that boots, run DOSEmu on
virtual console #1, which immediately boots. The other virtual
consoles provide an ability to run DOSEmu, which also can boot
FreeDOS.

There should be a simple method to direct the Linux host system to
"shutdown" or "reboot" from within the DOSEmu - but it could be as
simple as: when DOSEmu exits on virtual console #1, present a quick
menu to do a "soft reboot" (restart DOSEmu) or "hard reboot" or
"shutdown" (both affect the Linux host system.)

In this way, a certain level of abstraction or virtualization is realized. [..]
<<


Creating a lightweight Linux distro that boots dosemu instead of getty
would be an interesting experiment. Linux can boot on a purely UEFI
system, but dosemu provides the BIOS to the "guest" FreeDOS.

The host Linux environment wouldn't need to load many (any?) services,
just enough to bring up Linux in console mode and launch dosemu. And
the dosemu process automatically boots FreeDOS.

Basically, you'd see two boot-up processes: a minimal Linux comes up
first, then FreeDOS starts.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourcefo

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Jim Hall]

> > I was thinking that it could become necessary to start implementing a
> > FreeDOS version that included natively its own BIOS, and that this
> > combination of FreeDOS/BIOS is implemented entirely native as 32 or
> > 64-bit code...
>
> In my opinion: 1. is a very good idea. Something which boots
> via UEFI and supports GPT and loads Coreboot / Seabios / other
> BEFORE DOS, so DOS can enjoy a BIOS! I think support for common
> motherboards is somewhat limited yet, but you could check the
> current status. Maybe there is generic support for a wider range
> of boards, given that DOS only needs a limited set of devices?
>[..]

Sounds like you're suggesting running FreeDOS inside a "box" so that
it can access a BIOS. This sounds similar to an idea posted on our
blog a while back:

http://freedos-project.blogspot.com/2009/04/inside-box.html

>>
Create a very lightweight Linux system that boots, run DOSEmu on
virtual console #1, which immediately boots. The other virtual
consoles provide an ability to run DOSEmu, which also can boot
FreeDOS.

There should be a simple method to direct the Linux host system to
"shutdown" or "reboot" from within the DOSEmu - but it could be as
simple as: when DOSEmu exits on virtual console #1, present a quick
menu to do a "soft reboot" (restart DOSEmu) or "hard reboot" or
"shutdown" (both affect the Linux host system.)

In this way, a certain level of abstraction or virtualization is realized. [..]
<<


Creating a lightweight Linux distro that boots dosemu instead of getty
would be an interesting experiment. Linux can boot on a purely UEFI
system, but dosemu provides the BIOS to the "guest" FreeDOS.

The host Linux environment wouldn't need to load many (any?) services,
just enough to bring up Linux in console mode and launch dosemu. And
the dosemu process automatically boots FreeDOS.

Basically, you'd see two boot-up processes: a minimal Linux comes up
first, then FreeDOS starts.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Tom Ehlert]

> There already is FD32 which puts FreeDOS and
> a 32-bit DOS extender into the same file,
I missed this.
If you mean FreeDOS-32, they put  'FreeDOS and
a 32-bit DOS extender' in the project name, but the source is
unrelated to FreeDOS. If I'm wrong, please correct me.


> but the improvements
> compared to using a separate DOS extender (or just CWSDPMI) on
> a normal 16-bit FreeDOS kernel seem to be limited enough
as always said by these nasty experts...

> that FD32 is still not nearly as popular as old FreeDOS afaik...
if you are talking about FreeDOS-32, there has never been anything to
download as a *user*.

> I do appreciate having more 32-bit DOS extended DOS software,
> but for 64-bit and multi core / multi CPU / > 3 GB RAM, you
> would first have to suggest some really cool DOS use cases :-)
whatever someone might suggest, 64-bit is simply not possible on top of a 
16-bit OS

Tom


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Eric Auer]

Hi!

> I was thinking that it could become necessary to start implementing a
> FreeDOS version that included natively its own BIOS, and that this
> combination of FreeDOS/BIOS is implemented entirely native as 32 or
> 64-bit code...

In my opinion: 1. is a very good idea. Something which boots
via UEFI and supports GPT and loads Coreboot / Seabios / other
BEFORE DOS, so DOS can enjoy a BIOS! I think support for common
motherboards is somewhat limited yet, but you could check the
current status. Maybe there is generic support for a wider range
of boards, given that DOS only needs a limited set of devices?

I mean if Coreboot does not support hibernate or bluetooth on
some fancy computer, it might still support all the pieces of
the computer which are really necessary to run DOS :-)

However, 2. does not sound cool. You have to consider how much
software would actually support 32- or 64-bit code: Almost none.

And if you have a tool which uses 64-bit code, it would almost
always run a lot faster on a complex high end operating system
which can provide a fancy infrastructure of drivers, filesystems
and multitasking. There already is FD32 which puts FreeDOS and
a 32-bit DOS extender into the same file, but the improvements
compared to using a separate DOS extender (or just CWSDPMI) on
a normal 16-bit FreeDOS kernel seem to be limited enough that
FD32 is still not nearly as popular as old FreeDOS afaik...

I do appreciate having more 32-bit DOS extended DOS software,
but for 64-bit and multi core / multi CPU / > 3 GB RAM, you
would first have to suggest some really cool DOS use cases :-)

Cheers, Eric


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Ivan Ivanov]

Maybe you can use the open source coreboot/SeaBIOS projects?
It would be stupid to write your own BIOS from scratch, much better to
just take these successful implementations and use them

By the way, if you have coreboot-supported motherboard, it is already
possible with 1 simple command to include the FreeDOS floppy
to your coreboot+SeaBIOS build

Best regards,
Ivan Ivanov


  https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail;
target="_blank">https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif;
alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
/>
Без вирусов. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail;
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.ru




2018-01-07 21:41 GMT+03:00 Z. B. :
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 04:15:08PM +, Samuel V. via Freedos-user wrote:
>
>> I was thinking that it could become necessary to start implementing a 
>> FreeDOS version that included natively its own BIOS, and that this 
>> combination of FreeDOS/BIOS is implemented entirely native as 32 or 64-bit 
>> code, to keep using the known DOS environment, the same DOS/BIOS INT calls 
>> programming style (now also with other ways to call services), but extending 
>> everything to more modern CPU modes.
>> The intention is to update FreeDOS and the BIOS to 32 and 64-bit modes, 
>> without forgetting the original 16-bit version, but now giving native access 
>> to features that DOS would benefit from, but that aren't available in Real 
>> Mode, like many Gigabytes of RAM, large IDE/SATA hard disks, more capable 
>> drivers, more file systems.
>> Would you use a FreeDOS version that was entirely native to 32 or 64 bits?
>> I've thought that it would be a great additional project and that it would 
>> definitely make FreeDOS and DOS in general, along with an integrated BIOS, 
>> live as a valid OS choice for any user as long as there are PCs, at least 
>> x86 ones.
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freedos-32/
> http://menuetos.net/
> https://kolibrios.org/ (site seems to be down at the moment)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS
>
> --
> regards,
> Zbigniew
>
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Z. B.]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 04:15:08PM +, Samuel V. via Freedos-user wrote:

> I was thinking that it could become necessary to start implementing a FreeDOS 
> version that included natively its own BIOS, and that this combination of 
> FreeDOS/BIOS is implemented entirely native as 32 or 64-bit code, to keep 
> using the known DOS environment, the same DOS/BIOS INT calls programming 
> style (now also with other ways to call services), but extending everything 
> to more modern CPU modes.
> The intention is to update FreeDOS and the BIOS to 32 and 64-bit modes, 
> without forgetting the original 16-bit version, but now giving native access 
> to features that DOS would benefit from, but that aren't available in Real 
> Mode, like many Gigabytes of RAM, large IDE/SATA hard disks, more capable 
> drivers, more file systems.
> Would you use a FreeDOS version that was entirely native to 32 or 64 bits?
> I've thought that it would be a great additional project and that it would 
> definitely make FreeDOS and DOS in general, along with an integrated BIOS, 
> live as a valid OS choice for any user as long as there are PCs, at least x86 
> ones.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/freedos-32/
http://menuetos.net/
https://kolibrios.org/ (site seems to be down at the moment)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS

-- 
regards,
Zbigniew

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 12:58 PM, dmccunney  wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Samuel V. via Freedos-user
>  wrote:
>
>> I was thinking that it could become necessary to start implementing a
>> FreeDOS version that included natively its own BIOS, and that this
>> combination of FreeDOS/BIOS is implemented entirely native as 32 or 64-bit
>> code, to keep using the known DOS environment, the same DOS/BIOS INT calls
>> programming style (now also with other ways to call services), but extending
>> everything to more modern CPU modes.

There are several emulators (besides obvious QEMU), e.g.
8086tiny(plus), MS-DOS Player, PCEM, and a few others.

> And just who would *do* this?

Someone who thinks it's fairly easy, obviously.

I'm no genius, but some people are. Seriously, this kind of work (or
at least an initial implementation) is not hard for them. Harder
things are done every day.

Let's not be naive. Just because it hasn't happened "yet" doesn't mean
it never will. Granted, there's no huge pressing need for it (for most
of us) either.

We just miss the old days (OS/2, Win9x, XP's NTVDM) where it was
commonplace and expected to be able to run DOS stuff under modern
OSes. Obviously that disappeared (or became less common). I guess
DOSEMU is the closest we can get these days, but that's Linux only
(so? but some people still prefer Windows).

> Part of the problem for FreeDOS is that the people who *could* do it
> tend to have other things to do with their time, like 32/64bit code
> they get *paid* to write.

Yes, it's called "work", versus "hobby" where they do things for fun.

Then again, MS has billions of dollars and hasn't done it. They could
definitely afford to do it. Heck, they (mostly) invented DOS! So why
haven't they done it? If all it takes is money, why didn't they do it?
Certainly they wrote lots of DOS software, but I guess they didn't
want to preserve it infinitely (or it's already semi-preserved
elsewhere).

>> Would you use a FreeDOS version that was entirely native to 32 or 64 bits?
>
> Probably not.

The question is moreso if you still have DOS software that you would
potentially want to run at all. Some people legitimately don't. Of
course, some people live without Windows entirely, or C++ entirely, or
x86 entirely. They still function just fine.

GCC is a GNU project, but they intentionally target multiple systems
at multiple tiers (Primary Platforms and Secondary Platforms):

https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-8/criteria.html

Does one single person absolutely "need" to run his/her own work on
several architectures? No, of course not. Minimally, you only need one
(or maybe zero!).

The question is moreso, "Can you do everything with one tool?", and
the answer is "probably not". Can you do some, or even most, with only
one? Yes. Is it more effort to support two? Yes. Is more effort
sometimes worth it? Yes. Can you waste time on non-productive things
just for fun? Yes.

> I ran DOS, back when the original IBM-PC was setting a standard.  But
> DOS wasn't first OS I dealt with.  That was OS/VS1 (later OS/MVS) on
> an IBM mainframe.  I also logged time on Digital Equipment Corp.
> mini-computers, running DEC's RSTS-E, RSX11M+, and VAX/VMS OSes, and
> had a Unix machine running AT System V Release 2 at home before I
> got my first PC.  I also dealt with Novell Netware, OS/2 Warp,
> WindowsNT, SCO Open Server, Sun Solaris, and several flavors of Linux.

This is the reason for so-called "portable" (strictly conformant)
code. People want to run the same tasks (in perhaps the same
interface) on multiple machines. Some machines are cheaper or easier
to find or simpler to program than others.

Is DOS (x86) one of those potential platforms that can be made useful?
Do people still want to use it, even when other systems exist? Is it
always inferior and thus wrong to choose in light of others? Or is
there some advantage that isn't inherently made obvious (based upon
flawed metrics like age or native bitness)?

> Early DOS was constrained by limited early hardware.

Relatively.

Remember that CP/M was the universal 8-bit OS, and that was usually
limited to 64 kb of RAM. So DOS was a 16-bit (API only) clone of CP/M,
in order to persuade developers to switch. Actually, CP/M-86 wasn't
available yet. (I know you already know all of this.) My point is that
DOS (or at least 8086) was considered far superior to CP/M (8080).

Not to bring out the old bit wars, but "Do the math!" was Atari's
slogan for the 64-bit Jaguar. The reasons the Jaguar didn't succeed
were complicated, but mostly people just didn't care: didn't need it,
didn't like it, didn't want to use it, etc. (Let's not argue about the
true 64 bitness of it. It doesn't matter to me. People are more
nostalgic for Game Boy and derivatives, which IIRC were much weaker
8-bit Z80 machines.)

> My first PC was an XT clone with a 4.77ghz Intel 8088 CPU, 640K of RAM, CGA 
> graphics
> and dual 

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 2:55 PM, TJ Edmister  wrote:
>
> Reimplementing BIOS functions so that DOS could still run on a system
> without BIOS would be useful. (I suspect someone will do this sooner or
> later.)

DOSEMU? It also runs under x64 Linux. AFAIK, that doesn't use the
native BIOS at all.

> Creating new functionality for 32/64bit code would only be useful for new
> software, so there's not likely to be much interest there.

Depends.

> Personally, since the FreeBASIC compiler can target DOS, I still write code
> and run it under DOS on occasion. But I don't develop under DOS because
> of its single-tasking nature. I like to have a couple of text editors open all
> the time and I don't want to wait for a reboot if my program crashes.

FBC is based upon DJGPP (32-bit DPMI), so it should be rock stable.
You shouldn't have to reboot unless you do something extremely
low-level.

>> The intention is to update FreeDOS and the BIOS to 32 and 64-bit modes,
>
> Adding 32-bit multitasking and memory protection to DOS would be nifty.

DPMI is the memory protection, and that was meant to behave better
under multitasking OSes.

I agree that multitasking would be nice, but outside of DOSEMU, we
don't really have it. (DR-DOS 7.03 had it, pre-emptive, but it was
somewhat limited.) Then again, to me personally, I don't miss it
except for limited circumstances. I've seen people misuse multitasking
for what I consider obscure or ridiculous reasons.

To me, the only tedium that multitasking rightfully avoids is:

* compiling large amount of code (esp. DJGPP C++ stuff, although I
don't grok it!)
* finding files on a large hard disk partition
* (de)compressing files (a few big or lots of little ones)

There might be a few other scenarios, but overall, it's just something
you have to avoid / workaround / plan in advance. Seriously, with
careful planning, you can at least partially minimize slowdown. I know
that's not a perfect, universal solution, but generally you don't
"need" multitasking for literally everything. (Co-routines, anyone?)

> Moving to 64bit could be problematic though because of the lack of V86 mode.
> This is why I don't normally use 64bit Windows, it can't run any 16-bit
> programs at all (without the extra hassle of using an emulator).

Hardware VT-X fixes the slowdown, but it doesn't solve host / guest
integration. It's easier to extract files from a virtual FAT image
than it is to insert, at least on Windows (without GNU Mtools). Oops,
I forgot that Win7 (etc.) can mount .VHD files under Explorer, so even
that isn't hard. (I don't really use VMware, but don't forget
VMSMOUNT.)

>> without forgetting the original 16-bit version, but now giving native
>> access to features that DOS would benefit from, but that aren't available in
>> Real Mode, like many Gigabytes of RAM, large IDE/SATA hard disks, more
>> capable drivers, more file systems.

ext2 support would be nice. Or just native LFNs. DOSLFN is cool in a
pinch but quite slow. (And I think the dumb MS patents for VFAT
finally expired.) But we can live without. I dislike the idea that
it's "too hard" to avoid.

Gigabytes of RAM? Could be useful but few cared. Not sure if CWS (of
CWSDPMI) ever had any requests regarding PAE (36-bit). Even he said
you have to manually call sbrk() twice if you want more than 2 GB,
even DJGPP libc is almost always assuming 2 GB or less.

> More drivers and filesystem support could be added in real mode. Some may
> not run as efficiently in real mode as if they were fully 32bit code, but to
> avoid switching between 16 and 32bit code and have it work with existing
> programs I guess you'd need a new DOS extender that included its own 32bit
> drivers. Also, I don't think there is a 64bit DOS extender yet. Whoever
> makes that could create the standard :)

We have a few userland tools that can partially read ext2. The obvious
other workaround is to bootup Linux and mount / copy whatever you need
to / from FAT.

It's good to dream, but it's more practical to make the best of what
we have (and work around any existing problems). I don't think all of
this would be impossible for a competent engineer, but that ain't me!
 ;-)   Let's just enjoy what already works, which thankfully is much
more than nothing.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 11:55 AM, blame troi  wrote:
> On 1/6/2018 11:15 AM, Samuel V. via Freedos-user wrote:
>>
>> Would you use a FreeDOS version that was entirely native to 32 or 64 bits?
>
> I believe I would. I love the basic simplicity (it's a good simplicity) of
> DOS but memory issues and trying to figure out which extender works with
> which software is bothersome.
>
> Dream would be a 16-bit "box" mode inside this the 32/64 DOS where I can
> isolate old style apps I want to run.

I believe this has already, indirectly, been partially solved
(obviously, we all already know this):

* DOSBox (portable, uses SDL)
* DOSEMU (even x64, atop Linux)
* VBox or KVM (hardware VT-X)
* NTVDM (ReactOS)

Although to some, simple replacements (e.g. FreeBSD with Clang) are
considered good enough for average native use. (By "simple" I mean the
requirements of a C compiler, shell, text editor, compressor/archiver,
ftp, etc. are relatively simple instead of forcibly emulating all
relevant cpu-specific modes and APIs.)

>> I've thought that it would be a great additional project and that it would
>> definitely make FreeDOS and DOS in general, along with an integrated BIOS,
>> live as a valid OS choice for any user as long as there are PCs, at least
>> x86 ones.

I know the intention is "native", presumably 32-bit, using UEFI. I
don't think FD kernel is very big (comparatively), and certainly
pmode, AMD64, ACPI, etc. is much much more complicated. So I don't
think it's impossible to rewrite it, but so far nobody has done it.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[TJ Edmister]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 11:15:08 -0500, Samuel V. via Freedos-user  
 wrote:


I was thinking that it could become necessary to start implementing a  
FreeDOS version that included natively its own BIOS, and that this  
combination of FreeDOS/BIOS is implemented entirely native as 32 or  
64-bit code, to keep using the known DOS environment, the same DOS/BIOS  
INT calls programming style (now also with other ways to call services),  
but extending everything to more modern CPU modes.


Reimplementing BIOS functions so that DOS could still run on a system  
without BIOS would be useful. (I suspect someone will do this sooner or  
later.)


Creating new functionality for 32/64bit code would only be useful for new  
software, so there's not likely to be much interest there. Personally,  
since the FreeBASIC compiler can target DOS, I still write code and run it  
under DOS on occasion. But I don't develop under DOS because of its  
single-tasking nature. I like to have a couple of text editors open all  
the time and I don't want to wait for a reboot if my program crashes.



The intention is to update FreeDOS and the BIOS to 32 and 64-bit modes,


Adding 32-bit multitasking and memory protection to DOS would be nifty.

Moving to 64bit could be problematic though because of the lack of V86  
mode. This is why I don't normally use 64bit Windows, it can't run any  
16-bit programs at all (without the extra hassle of using an emulator).


without forgetting the original 16-bit version, but now giving native  
access to features that DOS would benefit from, but that aren't  
available in Real Mode, like many Gigabytes of RAM, large IDE/SATA hard  
disks, more capable drivers, more file systems.


More drivers and filesystem support could be added in real mode. Some may  
not run as efficiently in real mode as if they were fully 32bit code, but  
to avoid switching between 16 and 32bit code and have it work with  
existing programs I guess you'd need a new DOS extender that included its  
own 32bit drivers. Also, I don't think there is a 64bit DOS extender yet.  
Whoever makes that could create the standard :)



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[dmccunney]

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Samuel V. via Freedos-user
 wrote:
> I was thinking that it could become necessary to start implementing a
> FreeDOS version that included natively its own BIOS, and that this
> combination of FreeDOS/BIOS is implemented entirely native as 32 or 64-bit
> code, to keep using the known DOS environment, the same DOS/BIOS INT calls
> programming style (now also with other ways to call services), but extending
> everything to more modern CPU modes.

And just who would *do* this?

Part of the problem for FreeDOS is that the people who *could* do it
tend to have other things to do with their time, like 32/64bit code
they get *paid* to write.

> Would you use a FreeDOS version that was entirely native to 32 or 64 bits?

Probably not.

I ran DOS, back when the original IBM-PC was setting a standard.  But
DOS wasn't first OS I dealt with.  That was OS/VS1 (later OS/MVS) on
an IBM mainframe.  I also logged time on Digital Equipment Corp.
mini-computers, running DEC's RSTS-E, RSX11M+, and VAX/VMS OSes, and
had a Unix machine running AT System V Release 2 at home before I
got my first PC.  I also dealt with Novell Netware, OS/2 Warp,
WindowsNT, SCO Open Server, Sun Solaris, and several flavors of Linux.

Early DOS was constrained by limited early hardware.  My first PC was
an XT clone with a 4.77ghz Intel 8088 CPU, 640K of RAM, CGA graphics
and dual 360K 5.52" floppies.  I swapped in a 10mhz motherboard using
a NEC v20 CPU, added an AST 6-Pak card with a megabyte of additional
RAM allocated to a RAMdisk, disk cache, and EMS memory for
applications that could use it, and had a pair of 20 megabyte Seagate
ST-225 MFM hard drives.

I spent a fair bit of time looking for software to fill in the things
I missed from Unix.  I got it fairly well tricked out, but when more
powerful hardware came along, I migrated, and the more powerful
hardware included more powerful OSes.

These days I run Windows 10 Pro and Ubuntu Linux. I got FreeDOS
because it was fun to play with and exercise some muscles that hadn't
been used in a while.  I can (and do) run an assortment of older DOS
programs under vDOS+ on Windows, and DOSBox under Linux.  (For that
matter, I have a few running on my Android tablet under an Android
port of DOSBox.)

But those are just for fun. Actual *work* gets done elsewhere, because
it mostly can't be *done* under DOS.

Given that what I do wants an actual multitasking OS with support for
multiple users as a bonus, a 32/64bit native DOS version doesn't hold
much appeal.  I simply wouldn't have enough to do with it.
__
Dennis

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[blame troi]

On 1/6/2018 11:15 AM, Samuel V. via Freedos-user wrote:

Would you use a FreeDOS version that was entirely native to 32 or 64 bits?


I believe I would. I love the basic simplicity (it's a good simplicity) 
of DOS but memory issues and trying to figure out which extender works 
with which software is bothersome.


Dream would be a 16-bit "box" mode inside this the 32/64 DOS where I can 
isolate old style apps I want to run.




I've thought that it would be a great additional project and that it 
would definitely make FreeDOS and DOS in general, along with an 
integrated BIOS, live as a valid OS choice for any user as long as there 
are PCs, at least x86 ones.


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] Would you use a native 32/64-bit FreeDOS/BIOS system?

[Samuel V. via Freedos-user]

I was thinking that it could become necessary to start implementing a FreeDOS 
version that included natively its own BIOS, and that this combination of 
FreeDOS/BIOS is implemented entirely native as 32 or 64-bit code, to keep using 
the known DOS environment, the same DOS/BIOS INT calls programming style (now 
also with other ways to call services), but extending everything to more modern 
CPU modes.
The intention is to update FreeDOS and the BIOS to 32 and 64-bit modes, without 
forgetting the original 16-bit version, but now giving native access to 
features that DOS would benefit from, but that aren't available in Real Mode, 
like many Gigabytes of RAM, large IDE/SATA hard disks, more capable drivers, 
more file systems.
Would you use a FreeDOS version that was entirely native to 32 or 64 bits?
I've thought that it would be a great additional project and that it would 
definitely make FreeDOS and DOS in general, along with an integrated BIOS, live 
as a valid OS choice for any user as long as there are PCs, at least x86 ones.
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user