>> Originally it was 3.3
>> ...
>>  Later we got UMB
> and HMA
>> which are very useful so
>> we aimed for 5.0 kernel compatibility. Remember
>> that 5.0 and 6.22 basically have the same kernel.

> Just "a bit" compatible?

yes and no. and irrelevant.

the goal followed by the kernel programmers was

both
 ' make as many programs happy as possible. if we have to decide which
   DOS version to follow, take the younger one. '
  some (very few) internal ('undocumented') data structures changed
  between 3.x and 5.x; we took 5.x format
 
and
 ' make as many programs happy as possible, given our
   limited time/effort/motivation/whatever '
   
so Win3.1 was never implemented, as we were not interested in Win3.1

if YOU think LFN support in the kernel would be interesting, sit down
and make it. everybody else will have to use DOSLFN...

>> So if you ask me: Our current goal is compatibility
>> with MS DOS 5 / 6 kernel in the general case and a
>> nice collection of apps similar to MS DOS 6... Plus
>> support for new hardware in ways which may (FAT32,
>> LBA) but do not need to be compatible to Win DOS 7.

the next goal will be GPT compatibility for 2+ TB support.


> Might be coincidence that the DPB layout of MS-DOS 7 and FAT32 DOS-C is
> the same. Or that the same new, complicated FAT32 Int21 functions are
> supported. Or that DOSLFN services exactly the LFN functions used by  
> MS-DOS 7 COMMAND.COM versions.

I would call that 'hard work', noy just 'coincidence' ;)


Tom


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

Reply via email to