> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmccunney [mailto:dennis.mccun...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:05 PM
> To: Discussion and general questions about FreeDOS.
> Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:38 AM, dmccunney
> <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Michael Robinson
> >> <plu...@robinson-west.com> wrote:
> >>> A protected mode dos like the one under Windows 9x and Windows ME
> >>> could be interesting and would justifiably deserve a
> different name
> >> I wouldn't call that a "protected mode DOS". Win98/ME
> used DOS as a
> >> real mode loader for Windows. The protected mode portions
> were in the
> >> Windows code, and once Windows was loaded, DOS was out of the loop.
> > I thought WinME removed the real mode bootup, hence lower
> Don't have it and haven't used it, so don't know. Everything I've
> heard indicates it should have been called Win98 Third Edition. I'm
> pretty sure there was still DOS underneath like in ME. Removing the
> real mode loader didn't occur till NT.
Win NT4 significantly pre-dated Win 98; it came out in about '96. Many people
feel WinME was one of the worst pieces of software ever written, while 98SE was
very good. Win2k was the best, IMO.
> > Anyways, sure it preempted various DOS things, but other parts were
> > still used behind the scenes. It probably just switched modes a lot
> > (similar to DOS extenders). Indeed, I don't think it would
> run without
> > DOS, even if you did manage (somehow) to bootup without it.
> Might not, but the question is what DOS actually did under it. Memory
> and process management would all be on the Win side. DOS might get
> involved in file system access, but I'm not sure I see why. The same
> sort of thing could be done native from Windows instead of passed
> through DOS.
> >>> Gates made some very bad assumptions ... nobody will ever
> >>> need more than 640k of memory for executable programs
> >>> and drivers...
> >> That wasn't a Gates decision, it was an IBM decision. The 8088 CPU
> >> used by the original PC had a one megabyte address space.
> > Rumor is that IBM wanted 512 kb limit but MS complained! So
> we should
> > be grateful! ;-)
> > Tim Paterson successfully used the full MB of RAM on his
> original 8088
> > clones. Even MS had some of those machines for a long time so that
> > they could "link the[ir] linker".
> > Besides, you could still use more (kinda sorta) via EMS. It was many
> > years before extended RAM was cheap and common enough for
> software to
> > be useful over 1 MB.
> EMS used a 64KB page frame located in the block between 640K and 1MB,
> and paged memory above 1MB into it for use. My old XT clone had an
> AST 6Pak card with 1MB EMS. I used the AST drivers to create a 512KB
> RAMdisk and a 256KB disk cache. AUTOEXEC.BAT loaded a few constantly
> used things to the RAMdisk and made the RAMdisk first in the %PATH%,
> and things that could be told where to create temp files were pointed
> there. Sped things up a treat.
> I also had a freeware utility that could grab up to 96K of unused
> video memory above 540K and map that to DOS. I had 64K available,
> because I used a Hercules card, so DOS booting thinking I had 704K.
> >> Given that you have a megabyte available, total, and some
> *will* need
> >> to be reserved for the system, where *do* you draw the line?
> > Tegra 2 reserved part of its total RAM (address space) for the
> > graphics. A lot of other integrated chips / SoCs or whatever do too.
> Yeah, but they're all 32 bit processors, which is a whole
> different thing,
> > This is also why XP (32-bit) allegedly can only use 3.1 GB of RAM.
> Not just allegedly. See Mark Russinovitch's explanation of the
> underlying issues in his blog series:
> On my desktop, I have 4GB RAM, but XP can only use about 3.2MB of it.
> I found a freeware RAMdisk driver that can use the RAM XP can't see,
> and have a 763MB RAMdisk seen as Z:, with a compressed NTFS file
> system. I do things like run Firefox from it.
> > There are always hardcoded limits in everything, it's unavoidable.
> The question is where they are.
> >>> 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.
> >> If IBM is willing to release code, that's news to me.
> > No, they've said at least twice, very openly, that they
> will never do
> > so. Besides, lots of the code is copyrighted by MS still (due to the
> > 1.x co-development), so that makes it all the more complicated. IBM
> > just suggests people migrate to Linux and/or Java these days.
> It would be lovely if they did open source it, but stuff like MS's
> participation in the original development would make that difficult.
> >> You can still get OS/2 from an outfit called eComstation:
> >> http://www.ecomstation.com/product_info.phtml
> > Yes, it sells a 5-pack of licenses for [EDIT] $149 USD or such. Not
> > sure how well the DOS support still works, but I think it claims to
> > have semi-recent Firefox, OpenOffice, Java, etc. Though I would be
> > skeptical that it wouldn't boot properly, honestly, but hopefully
> > they've fixed most of that in their [EDIT] 2.1 release.
> I don't see why DOS support shouldn't still work. The Firefox port is
> third-party - Mozilla officially supports Windows, OS/X and Linux -
> but the underlying code was designed to be portable. For that matter,
> I believe there are still people doing VMS ports.
> Master Java SE, Java EE, Eclipse, Spring, Hibernate,
> 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
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