Re: [Freedos-user] Survey of available DOSes
> Actually, WinXP and DOSEMU have another advantage over DOSBox: LFNs. > You'd be surprised (or maybe not, heh) at how many projects just > assume LFNs are available. DOSBox doesn't support LFNs, and while I > can't remember, I don't think DOSLFN worked there anyways. Well, it could work for files that are accessed as FS images, but certainly not for the FS redirection. And even DOSLFN's FS image mode (where DOSLFN just sees a typical FAT FS) might not work correctly with DOSBox's built-in DOS because of the latter's peculiarities. (DOSLFN should work for typical FAT FS inside a DOS booted in DOSBox, though.) > Yes, its cpu emulation is good, Nah. It doesn't even properly implement tracing with TF. I did patch that locally, but they'd probably turn down patches like that because "no game needs it" and if that's the case, they don't want it (even if it doesn't do any harm). Such seems to have been handled better by dosemu, too. Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Survey of available DOSes
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:46 PM, C. Masloch wrote:
>
>> * DOSBox ... sure, it's only for games and is really its own "fake"
>> DOS, but it sorta works and is free/libre, popular, and easy to find
>> binaries.
>
>> I wouldn't specifically include DOSEMU because it needs a "real" DOS,
>
> DOSBox can also boot an actual DOS version (like dosemu always does),
> which improves DOSBox's compatibility a lot (eg testing function calls
> that are not supported by DOSBox won't immediately exit the emulation).
>
> Unfortunately, at least as far as known to me, DOSBox's FS redirector is
> only available with the built-in DOS, not when booting a DOS inside it.
> For that usage, dosemu is better because it provides its MFS-based
> redirector for the booted DOS (using the lredir program).
Yes, that's why things like WinXP and DOSEMU are popular: easy access
to host OS files. (But for VMware see Eduardo's VMSMOUNT.)
Actually, WinXP and DOSEMU have another advantage over DOSBox: LFNs.
You'd be surprised (or maybe not, heh) at how many projects just
assume LFNs are available. DOSBox doesn't support LFNs, and while I
can't remember, I don't think DOSLFN worked there anyways. Like I
said, DOSBox is very good at what it does (sound, gfx), but it's
officially "only for games". Yes, its cpu emulation is good, but it's
not directly meant to boot other OSes.
Another drawback of DOSBox is that it's limited to max 64 MB ("without
recompiling") and only defaults to 16 MB. Even DOSEMU (default 20 MB
DPMI, blech) or Vista SP1 and Win7 (default 32 MB DPMI, blech) can be
configured beyond that, which is crucial for lots of things (e.g.
DJGPP). Though in DOSBox's case, it may be more about saving host OS
RAM or maybe old game compatibility (where they'd choke on seeing
more), etc.
So there are a lot of things to consider when choosing a DOS. But for
average, simple stuff, almost anything will do.
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Survey of available DOSes
> * DOSBox ... sure, it's only for games and is really its own "fake" > DOS, but it sorta works and is free/libre, popular, and easy to find > binaries. > I wouldn't specifically include DOSEMU because it needs a "real" DOS, DOSBox can also boot an actual DOS version (like dosemu always does), which improves DOSBox's compatibility a lot (eg testing function calls that are not supported by DOSBox won't immediately exit the emulation). Unfortunately, at least as far as known to me, DOSBox's FS redirector is only available with the built-in DOS, not when booting a DOS inside it. For that usage, dosemu is better because it provides its MFS-based redirector for the booted DOS (using the lredir program). Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Survey of available DOSes
Hi, On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:24 PM, wrote: > > The talk about different versions of DOS reminds me that I've been doing > research recently about which DOS operating systems are available. > > Here is how I see it: > > FreeDOS > MS-DOS 6.22 > Win9x (MS-DOS 7.1) > DR-DOS 7.03 > Enhanced DR-DOS > Datalight ROM-DOS > PTS-DOS / PTS-DOS 32 > > I suppose there are a couple of other DOS OS available, > but I'm not sure those are worth investigating. > > Any comments? If you need DOS for some specific application, whichever one is closest at hand (and works for you, of course) is "the best." Most people don't reinstall but instead prefer to keep existing stuff as-is. Anyways, I would add a few to the list: * Win2k / WinXP (NTVDM is fake but it still "mostly" works) ... and no, I don't count Vista or 7, too buggy! :-( * DOSBox ... sure, it's only for games and is really its own "fake" DOS, but it sorta works and is free/libre, popular, and easy to find binaries. * IBM PC-DOS 2000 ... harder to find but indeed a separate version with good compatibility (or so I've heard). I wouldn't specifically include DOSEMU because it needs a "real" DOS, so including FreeDOS already covers that. Same for VirtualBox or QEMU or similar. They can be useful in their own right, though. There are various others, but I have basically nil experience with them (e.g. RDOS, TSX-Lite, Real/32 or whatever, dunno). Long story short: FreeDOS is very very good (IMHO), free/libre, and has "potential" to be improved ad infinitum. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of developers nor volunteers, but overall, it's probably our last best hope for keeping DOS compatibility alive. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Survey of available DOSes
The talk about different versions of DOS reminds me that I've been doing research recently about which DOS operating systems are available. Here is how I see it: FreeDOS: FAT32 and LBA support, LFN support loadable which can avoid M$ patent issues Seems to work well but some think it's not suitable for production environments. No problem with license for any reason. MS-DOS 6.22: Rock solid, no LBA, FAT32 or LFN. Licenses difficult to come by. MS-DOS 7.1 Solid, LBA, FAT32, LFN License only available with an old copy of windows DR-DOS 7.03 Solid, no LBA, FAT32 or LFN. Licenses readily available. DR-DOS 8+ No licenses available. Enhanced DR-DOS - technically good with FAT32, LBA, LFN but no licenses are available except for a fuzzy "personal evaluation" Datalight ROM-DOS. Solid, supports, FAT32,LBA, LFN. SHARE is not supported on FAT32 for some reason. Licenses readily available. So it seems like if one is starting from scratch (ie does not have a pile of old licenses) then the only ones worth considering are FreeDOS and ROM-DOS. I suppose there are a couple of other DOS OS available (PTS DOS and maybe one other) but I'm not sure those are worth investigating. Any comments? Sorry - not trying to start a flaming discussion here, but I've been following FreeDOS for several years and only started to understand the above. Dave -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
