Re: [Freedos-user] Country Code
Hi Ralf:
Well, it really would bode you well if you were a bit less arrogant at
times.
{These are called ‘You statements’ and are the typical way we
communicate. We tell the person what he did or didn’t do, whether it was
right or wrong or what he should or shouldn’t be doing. Such statements,
more often than not sound like accusations and blame. It conveys
judgment. No one likes being judged and hence it closes down
communication lines. It puts the person on the defense, making him
unable and unwilling to be open to what you have to say and truly listen.}
The article goes on to mention `I' statements.
https://innerspacetherapy.in/communication-you-i-statements/
--
members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Country Code
On 12/31/2021 2:37 PM, tom ehlert wrote: At that point, the system wants to create a page file that is larger (by default) than the 2GB fixed file size limit of FAT16/32. FAT has a limit of 4GB. it's DOS that limits this unless you indicate at DosOpen that you understand the difference between signed and unsigned (2GB and 4GB) offsets for file systems. so the limit for NT was 4GB, not 2 GB (or at least should have been) Well, it really would bode you well if you were a bit less arrogant at times. This was a simple typo... Ralf -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Country Code
On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 at 20:21, Robert Riebisch wrote: > > This message is written on virtual Windows XP using Thunderbird 2.x from > 2010. ;-) I have to ask: why run this old version? It's a bit dangerous to let such an old app connect to the internet, especially on a very old, insecure OS. Thunderbird is still around, works absolutely fine, and is stable, supported and gets regular security patches. Just install it on the host OS -- Mint 20.2 includes T'bird. I have it on my spare work laptop. I am running it right now on macOS – *flips 2 vdesktops right* – v91.4.1. I used it as my primary work email (and calendar) client for 4 years in my last job, talking to 4 different email servers. In my first few months I tried every major FOSS email client and came back to T'bird. It does more than any of the others, and it's fast and powerful. Why not just run the current version, or even the previous version if you want some XUL addons. https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/releases/ -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] A new (?) DOS web browser
Hi Liam, > https://github.com/jhhoward/MicroWeb No, nothing new. It was already mentioned here some month ago. Cheers, Robert -- +++ BTTR Software +++ Home page: https://www.bttr-software.de/ DOS ain't dead: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Country Code
On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 17:37:29 +0100 Liam Proven wrote: > > This typical Microsoftish genius idea, makes you jump through all > > kinds of hoops that include a third party online repartitioning > > tool to install it on an NTFS partition bigger than 2Gb. > > That's unfair. I think it's connected with the way NT <5 bootstrapped > an installation. > > Relevant digression: you can start NT installation from DOS. This was > a very useful feature and I urged IBM to copy it, but the techies I > spoke to could not understand why. > > NT 3.x predates EIDE; indeed I ordered and returned a bunch of very > early EIDE Pentium 1 PCs because NT could only see the first 512MB of > their 540MB disks. We had to swap them for SCSI machines. > > When NT 3.1/3.5/3.51 came out, most PCs could not boot from CD. Many > CD drives were attached to sound cards via proprietary interfaces; > Panasonic, Mitsumi and Sony were common: > https://goughlui.com/2012/11/12/tech-flashback-before-atapi-cd-roms-were-proprietary-interfaces/ You could get NT 4 just on floppy disks. > No OS could boot off these, and most only supported DOS and Win9x in > DOS compatibility mode. > > This also made it possible to install over the network without a > local CD drive. > > So, you could boot a PC under DOS, make a FAT partition, copy the NT > files from the CD or a network server onto the FAT partition, run > WINNT.EXE *under DOS* and it built a very minimal installation system > on the hard disk. The folder name varied but it was something like > C:\~$win.nt$\ > > Then it rebooted the PC into that, where a 2nd stage setup ran and > built the real NT system. Then it rebooted into _that_. If you picked > NTFS that now ran `CONVERT C: /FS:NTFS` on your drive. > > I don't think MS was trying to be awkward, and this functionality was > a lifesaver. It allowed me at one corporate client to bring up a whole > roomful of dozens of NT 4 machines with only a single optical drive on > the server, which saved so much money it paid for about 2-3 more PCs. > > You could bypass the DOS step by booting from 3 special NT boot > floppies, but the DOS method was quicker, easier and more versatile. > > Under OS/2 2.x and later, you only had the floppy method, and you had > to get your CD working under those boot floppies, adding drivers, > editing its vast multi-hundred-line CONFIG.SYS file to suit... it was > a major pain. If there were no OS/2 drivers for your CD, then you had > to copy the install files to a partition that the boot floppies could > access. The setup program only ran under OS/2 2 itself and couldn't > start from DOS. > > But the 2-stage NT setup is why it went through this > format-as-FAT-then-convert process. It limited your Windows system > drive to a max of 4GB until PartitionMagic came along, but it worked > and it meant it was easy to get NT onto machines that OS/2 only > installed upon with great difficulty, or not at all. > My perspective on this is different because I also had experience with other OSes back in those days that did better in that regard. I don't see any good reason for not just offering the option to directly format the drive as NTFS and install to it from the start in addition to offering the option to install on FAT from DOS and than later convert to NTFS when needed like you explained. It's truly a pity since the NTFS version shipped with NT 4 can handle much larger partitions. I still have a real hardware NT 4 install with a second 160Gb SATA drive formatted with it that works great. I don't consider saving money by not paying programmers to make it possible to install directly to NTFS to be a good reason especially since they were already swimming in cash back in those days. In contrast, BeOS could install itself directly from crummy Windows 9x by popping the CD in and running a Windows installer (or somehow transferring the files from the CD to the PC) and also had it's own native installer. Pretty sure Be had less programmers working on BeOS than M$ had working on NT. Linux even back in those days of pppd shell scripts and weekly kernel compiles could also be installed on FAT with umsdos if you wished so for some reason. And it could even emulate permissions on top of FAT. You could also of course install it from the network. If all else failed, you install it entirely from floppies. M$ has a history of always doing the bare minimum. Like MS DOS vs PC DOS vs Dos Plus/DR DOS. I'll concede though that the worst installer ever by far in my experience is the one for NeXTSTEP. Solaris with it's nightmarishly slow java installer was pretty bad as well. Happy new year, -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Country Code
Hi Travis, > Reminds me of my last XP machine, supposedly, XP could handle up to 4GB > of ram, but when I installed 4GB in my machine, XP only saw 3.5GB. No > idea why, I never did find out what the technical reason was, but it was > a commonly known problem, since almost everywhere I tried to get the ram > from for the pc insisted XP wouldn't see more than 3.5GB. Kind of odd I > thought, but it accomplished what I needed, so I was ok with it. I > still have that machine around here somewhere, though I've not turned it > on in a couple years. :) As we are already totally off-topic: Yesterday I finished migrating my beloved Windows XP x86 running on a ThinkPad R500 to VirtualBox hosted on Linux Mint 20.2 MATE on a ThinkPad E570. This message is written on virtual Windows XP using Thunderbird 2.x from 2010. ;-) Cheers, Robert -- +++ BTTR Software +++ Home page: https://www.bttr-software.de/ DOS ain't dead: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Country Code
Ahh, thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Wasn't aware such things were still the case these days, but these two messages answer the question sufficiently, thanks for that. On 1/1/2022 8:23 AM, Liam Proven wrote: On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 at 02:12, Travis Siegel wrote: supposedly, XP could handle up to 4GB of ram, but when I installed 4GB in my machine, XP only saw 3.5GB. What Jon Brase said, broadly. Remember the original PC's 640 kB limit? The 8088 and 8086 could address 1 MB of RAM, but DOS on the PC could only use the first 2/3 of it. The top 1/3 of the address space was reserved for ROMs (not just the PC BIOS, but also the video card's BIOS, possibly the ROM of a bootable network card or SCSI card and so on) and for I/O space. If you added an hardware LIM-spec EMS card, then the page frame went in that top 384 kB too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_memory#:~:text=Expanded%20memory%20is%20an%20umbrella,to%20as%20%22LIM%20EMS%22. Well, 32-bit PCs have an analogous issue. 32-bit Intel x86 chips can address a total of 4 GB of address space. This space is not just RAM, but also ROM, I/O space and so on. While a 1980s video card might only have 32 kB of RAM, mapped into the space above 640 kB, a 21st century video card may have several gigabytes of its own RAM. Too much to map into a 32-bit memory space, or there'd be no room left for RAM! So a relatively small window is mapped into the memory map -- maybe 256MB or so -- and that's used to write data into the video card's memory. Also mapped in there is the ROM of any bootable hardware, and I/O space, and so on. So just like 384 kB of the 1MB of address space in the PC was reserved for ROM, video memory and I/O, and so couldn't be used for RAM, in a 32-bit PC, a certain amount of its 4GB of address space is reserved for ROM, video memory and I/O and can't be used for RAM. And just like EMS on an 8088/8086 PC, in x86-32, there is an additional mechanism for accessing more by paging little chunks of it into the limited available space: it's called PAE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension Mac OS X can use it, Linux can use it, Windows Server can use it, but in order to boost sales of 64-bit Windows and Windows Server, and accelerate the transition away from 32-bit OSes, Microsoft made sure that the ability is turned off in 32-bit Windows. It's there in the hardware, but 32-bit XP/Vista/7/8.x/10 can't use it. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] installing FD13RC5 and FD12 in virtmanager
On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 at 11:16, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote: > I drop the console and run "format c:/s" and only the kernel.sys and > command.com are copied This is normal expected behaviour for `format /s` and it is what it is intended and planned to do. It makes a disk bootable, no more. As for the rest, I don't know. I have never tried DOS under VMM. What drive letter is your boot media appearing as? -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Country Code
On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 at 02:12, Travis Siegel wrote: > > supposedly, XP could handle up to 4GB > of ram, but when I installed 4GB in my machine, XP only saw 3.5GB. What Jon Brase said, broadly. Remember the original PC's 640 kB limit? The 8088 and 8086 could address 1 MB of RAM, but DOS on the PC could only use the first 2/3 of it. The top 1/3 of the address space was reserved for ROMs (not just the PC BIOS, but also the video card's BIOS, possibly the ROM of a bootable network card or SCSI card and so on) and for I/O space. If you added an hardware LIM-spec EMS card, then the page frame went in that top 384 kB too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_memory#:~:text=Expanded%20memory%20is%20an%20umbrella,to%20as%20%22LIM%20EMS%22. Well, 32-bit PCs have an analogous issue. 32-bit Intel x86 chips can address a total of 4 GB of address space. This space is not just RAM, but also ROM, I/O space and so on. While a 1980s video card might only have 32 kB of RAM, mapped into the space above 640 kB, a 21st century video card may have several gigabytes of its own RAM. Too much to map into a 32-bit memory space, or there'd be no room left for RAM! So a relatively small window is mapped into the memory map -- maybe 256MB or so -- and that's used to write data into the video card's memory. Also mapped in there is the ROM of any bootable hardware, and I/O space, and so on. So just like 384 kB of the 1MB of address space in the PC was reserved for ROM, video memory and I/O, and so couldn't be used for RAM, in a 32-bit PC, a certain amount of its 4GB of address space is reserved for ROM, video memory and I/O and can't be used for RAM. And just like EMS on an 8088/8086 PC, in x86-32, there is an additional mechanism for accessing more by paging little chunks of it into the limited available space: it's called PAE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension Mac OS X can use it, Linux can use it, Windows Server can use it, but in order to boost sales of 64-bit Windows and Windows Server, and accelerate the transition away from 32-bit OSes, Microsoft made sure that the ability is turned off in 32-bit Windows. It's there in the hardware, but 32-bit XP/Vista/7/8.x/10 can't use it. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] installing FD13RC5 and FD12 in virtmanager
I am running into an issue with installing FreeDOS in virtmanger on Debian 10. FD12 iso boots fine and I can go through the fdisk wizard, I reboot and start the format and install and I get a warning saying the system files cannot be found. I drop the console and run "format c:/s" and only the kernel.sys and command.com are copied which allows the system to boot but I have no utilities. FD13RC5 will not load the fdisk utility. I tried to run fdisk from the console and I get "invalid drive designation" the same thing when I try in gnome boxes. However I can install it on VirtualBox just fine. I am not sure if it is my setup that is the issue. Herminio ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
