> > > There's no need to know assembler in order to help. Someone will have to > > > make the transcription of the documentation. Anyone can do a copy & > > > paste. And anyone can do some graphics using xfig. > > > > In this case I was not talking about TeXing docs, but about creating > > MSX-DOS3 with the proposed features.
Let's not forget multitasking support in a new MSX DOS3. Partial implementation and preparation is already there in the MSX DOS2 architecture. Also, it must be able to run from ROM aswell as RAM (well, ofcourse not the exact same version, but with a few parts of conditional code it should be possible). > You'll need to train a few programmers before creating a new OS. There > aren't many programmers here with the knowledge to do this, and only a > few would feel like/have time to work on this. Documentation is a > necessity. I already started a project of the likes once (because I thought the screen display routines were way too slow) (it patched dos, and worked quite nice (fast!!!) but it didn't support > nul etc. and it was also not a real tsr), but I got kind of stuck on the memory layout and drive access, in other words: the documentation. There are very few complete docs on the DOS2 system area for example. I also didn't spend that much time on it... There are more interesting things :)... Patriek Lesparre wrote: > I don't see any reason to replace the standard Disk BIOS on the mainboard > of the MSX, I believe only additional devices need new BIOS support. Who > needs FAT16 support on their 720kB diskdrive? Supporting more than 8 driveletters requires an updated diskrom, unless you work around it (I don't know it this is easy or every possible), or you use the PC trick (diskdrives are A: and B:, and harddisk etc. are C: and up). Software-wise, MSX-DOS supports 255 drives on almost all functions, except for one, (get available drives or something like that), which only supports 16 drives. It could be extended although that won't be pretty (something like if bit 15 is set check memory location blah for extended drive info)... Anyways it isn't used *that* often. Ag0ny wrote: >Please calm down. Do you still remember how this thread started? We were >talking about *CLONING* MSX-DOS and make an OpenSource MSX-DOS(1) >compatible OS. Once this is finished MSX-DOS2 support *COULD* be added. >And *IF* this part is a success *THEN* new features could be >implemented. I think a lot of the functions DOS1 has are quite outdated and should be rewritten when used in DOS2. Yes, indeed, the DOS1 functions are still there in DOS2, but I think it's highly likely those only interface to the DOS2 routines. I wrote: >>I have debugged MSXDOS2.SYS. It's a patch of the kernel. Pierre wrote: >Please: upload it to ftp.funet.fi or www.msx.org. Hmm, I might aswell do that, eh? It's not of much use though... so don't hold your breath. Oh, and btw, 'debugged' should ofcourse be read as 'disassembled and commented'. Bas Wijnen wrote: > Unfortunately, I cannot do it myself, since I have an RSI (problems with > my hands because of too much typing :-( ). (Yes, this mail is much too > long.) This afternoon, I noticed that the design of my 8245 is VERY bad! My hands are in an awfully wrong position. 8235 computers are slighly better (because you can tilt the keyboard to a lesser angle), and msx computers with a seperate keyboard are the best, when combined with a wrist support to rest your wrists on while you are NOT typing. Also, always try to keep the angle of your wrist as low as possible, and if your wrist feels stressed and with a lot of tension, rest for a slight moment, go drink some coffee or study some documents in greater detail. Will also decrease the amount of bugs. I hear people suffering from RSI too often on this list... ~Grauw -- For info, see http://www.stack.nl/~wynke/MSX/listinfo.html
