On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 18:46 +0100, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
> Op 8-1-2013 15:38, KOS schreef:
> > Hello there, do you know when V2.0 of freedos will be available?
> I'm not sure there's going to be a V2.0 sometime soon, be there FreeDOS
> roadmaps or not. I'm still quitely working on version 1.2 of the FreeDOS
> distribution whenever I find spare time.
> Is there anything that you need but find lacking sofar in the 1.0 and
> 1.1 releases? Or for that matter in the core components like the kernel
> and shell?
There are some programs that require Windows 3.1 or 3.11 which can run
on top of Freedos, but more work on compatibility would not hurt.
ReactOS may fill the niche of Windows replacement eventually, but not
for a while most likely. Worse, for Windows programs that expect there
to be dos underneath, enough said.
A protected mode dos like the one under Windows 9x and Windows ME
could be interesting and would justifiably deserve a different name
like Freedos-32. The problem with a dos environment is that there
isn't an operating system taking care of all the hardware and
providing standard calls to use it. Most sound card support
involved adding to your program in most likely a spaghetti fashion
calls to a third party driver, closed source of course. Windows 98
may have had multitasking, but if that is true, it was more than
just a single thread dos system. Gates made some very bad
assumptions that crippled dos back in the day. Assumption one,
nobody will ever need more than 640k of memory for executable
programs and drivers... I imagine that other bad assumptions
were made as well.
Actually, there is OS/2 which was supposed to be the competitor to
Windows 9x and I'll bet that IBM is willing to release source code
to it. Maybe the freedos community should get it's hands on OS/2
and develop it further.
Aside from taking bugs out of Freedos 1.1, I don't see any major
changes that should be made. Implementation of a Windows 9x clone
is going to be too much work where there is the ReactOS project
that gave up on trying to do that years ago. I'm confident that
ReactOS will work better on old computers than XP does. Granted,
ReactOS is at a very early alpha stage where it is somewhat futile
to predict what the resource requirements will be when it
I like FLTK, I like opengem, I like some of the graphical user
interfaces I have seen that are free. Problem though, graphical user
interfaces on top of dos are an afterthought even today. There was no
planning when dos was initially invented that I know of for guis. There
are plenty of MS Dos programs that aren't Windows compatible, because a
Windows compatible programming method wasn't employed.
What I'd like to see at this point is a focus on debugging and a focus
on deploying Freedos via a rom chip. It should be possible to get write
once 1 meg+ memory chips now. Why not install the freedos kernel,
command.com, etcetera on such a chip? If you can't overwrite the
operating system executable, security is enormously improved. For low
power embedded processors that are say only 8 bit, freedos may be very
useful. A hypervisor that can run dosbox and make modern hardware work
with old dos programs anyone? How about dosbox running on a Pentium 133
or a Pentium 166 machine with 16 megs of ram?
and much more. Keep your Java skills current with LearnJavaNow -
200+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Java experts.
SALE $49.99 this month only -- learn more at:
Freedos-user mailing list