> Dos is much more than a FAT driver

Do you talk about the "date/time" functions? :)

> but a JEMMX plugin version of DOSLFN would be an idea...

why should this be better than a full VFAT driver? AFAICS DOSLFN suffers from 
not being tightly integrated into the DOS FAT driver.

> For example if you let FreeDOS
> move the "list of lists" to UMB or even HMA, you get, afair,
> 10 kB more low DOS RAM free, but get less compatibility. So a
> virtual kernel would have similar problems.

Moving some known DOS data items away from conventional memory might be a 
problem, but why should moving the FAT code into extended memory give similiar 
problems? I cannot see those similiarities.

> You would get more something like dosbox than something like dos ;-)

Is this argument meant serious? Hopefully not, because it is "not very 
convincing". Why should a protected-mode FAT driver make DOS change to a "DOS 

This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to