Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Wengier W via Freedos-user]


> NTVDM

Compatibility and quality problems aside, WinNT+'s NTVDM only supports (subset 
of) DOS programs designed for the standard IBM PC with limited hardware 
configurations. On the other hand, DOSBox(-X) goes way beyond this, for 
example, allowing to emulate another full DOS-based PC, running different types 
of DOS programs and DOS-based Windows. You can for example emulate a PCjr, 
Amstrad, or NEC PC-98 system, and run programs designed for them, which are 
simply not possible with NTVDM. This is similar to that running DOSBox-X in DOS 
itself - you can emulate a DOS system very different from the host DOS and run 
programs designed for that DOS system. NTVDM is rather basic in such 
functionalities when compared with dedicated DOS emulators like DOSBox(-X).

Wengier


On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 12:26:51 p.m. EDT, Wengier W via Freedos-user 
 wrote:


> The 32-bit WinNT one can't: it's a sort of VM, containing a DOS emulator.
> The reason the NT one isn't very good is the reason that NT was a successful 
> product: because it isolates apps from the hardware, making it more reliable 
> and allowing SMP and things.

The root reason is that WinNT is not DOS based, so it tried to emulate DOS in 
some way. However, as you also agree that the NTVDM has apparent compatibility 
problems, so many people sought for better solutions and DOSBox(-X) emerged at 
the time which worked better for their purposes. I really wonder why you were 
"puzzled" about such solutions. Many people simply needed a better DOS emulator 
rather than the emulation that NTVDM provided.

> That is nothing to do with the VDM.

There was definitely something to do with the VDM, that Microsoft was never 
interested in seriously working on NTVDM in the (32-bit) XP+ era. For example, 
XP's NTVDM only provided Sound Blaster 2.0 emulation for sound support. We know 
how terrible the sound was in SB 2.0 (compared with later sound cards), but 
Microsoft never provided better sound card emulation in their NTVDM, say SB Pro 
or SB 16 emulation. People who wanted better emulations had to use 3rd-party 
products anyway. If Microsoft was more serious in supporting NTVDM, they would 
certainly provide a better quality solution for NTVDM, such as adapting SB 
Pro/16 emulation and/or trying to fix the full-screen mode issue in Vista+. 
However, it was clear that no new functionalities were added to NTVDM by 
Microsoft since XP, but only reduced functionalities, even if it was well-known 
that NTVDM had many problems.

> It's part of the hardware design and MS has little influence over that.

The apparent thing is that Microsoft had no interest in keeping DOS/Windows 3.x 
support at all in their new products. If they were interested, they could 
definitely try to develop 64-bit NTVDM for 64-bit Windows releases (similar to 
NTVDMx64). But as mentioned above, Microsoft had no desire to improve NTVDM 
even in their 32-bit Windows releases, so it is understandable that they would 
not have desire to ever work on 64-bit NTVDM for their 64-bit Windows releases. 
MS had full control over this.

Wengier


On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 06:00:16 a.m. EDT, Liam Proven 
 wrote:


On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 01:34, Wengier W via Freedos-user
 wrote:
>
> The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge 
> differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's 
> NTVDM.

Well, yes. The Win9x DOS prompt is real DOS running on a real DOS
kernel which can access hardware.

The 32-bit WinNT one can't: it's a sort of VM, containing a DOS emulator.

The reason the NT one isn't very good is the reason that NT was a
successful product: because it isolates apps from the hardware, making
it more reliable and allowing SMP and things.

This is akin to complaining that a motorcycle is a bad bicycle because
this big heavy engine slows you down. The engine is the point of the
exercise. If you don't use the engine then yes it gets in the way.

> Even OS/2's MVDM did a much better job than XP's NTVDM in emulating DOS.

Yes, it did. But I bought and ran OS/2. Running Fractint for DOS in an
OS/2 DOS box, and then picking one of Fractint's extended screen
modes, reliable crashed OS/2.

It let apps hit the hardware. More compatible, but less stable.

You can have one thing or the other. Not both, unless you time-travel
20Y forwards and emulate the entire computer in software. That's very
inefficient and that itself offends my sense of elegance. :-)

>  The NTVDM only got worse with (32-bit) Windows Vista or 7 -- things such as 
> the full-screen mode were removed from its NTVDM as well.

That is nothing to do with the VDM.  That is because PCs were all
getting 3D cards. Microsoft's devs (and Linux's devs) had no idea what
to do with them. Apple's devs were smarter and worked out how to use a
3D accelerator to speed up a windowing desktop: what you do is, you
render all the window contents as textures, and then you hand those
textures to 

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Wengier W via Freedos-user]

 > The 32-bit WinNT one can't: it's a sort of VM, containing a DOS emulator.
> The reason the NT one isn't very good is the reason that NT was a successful 
> product: because it isolates apps from the hardware, making it more reliable 
> and allowing SMP and things.
The root reason is that WinNT is not DOS based, so it tried to emulate DOS in 
some way. However, as you also agree that the NTVDM has apparent compatibility 
problems, so many people sought for better solutions and DOSBox(-X) emerged at 
the time which worked better for their purposes. I really wonder why you were 
"puzzled" about such solutions. Many people simply needed a better DOS emulator 
rather than the emulation that NTVDM provided.
> That is nothing to do with the VDM.

There was definitely something to do with the VDM, that Microsoft was never 
interested in seriously working on NTVDM in the (32-bit) XP+ era. For example, 
XP's NTVDM only provided Sound Blaster 2.0 emulation for sound support. We know 
how terrible the sound was in SB 2.0 (compared with later sound cards), but 
Microsoft never provided better sound card emulation in their NTVDM, say SB Pro 
or SB 16 emulation. People who wanted better emulations had to use 3rd-party 
products anyway. If Microsoft was more serious in supporting NTVDM, they would 
certainly provide a better quality solution for NTVDM, such as adapting SB 
Pro/16 emulation and/or trying to fix the full-screen mode issue in Vista+. 
However, it was clear that no new functionalities were added to NTVDM by 
Microsoft since XP, but only reduced functionalities, even if it was well-known 
that NTVDM had many problems.
> It's part of the hardware design and MS has little influence over that.
The apparent thing is that Microsoft had no interest in keeping DOS/Windows 3.x 
support at all in their new products. If they were interested, they could 
definitely try to develop 64-bit NTVDM for 64-bit Windows releases (similar to 
NTVDMx64). But as mentioned above, Microsoft had no desire to improve NTVDM 
even in their 32-bit Windows releases, so it is understandable that they would 
not have desire to ever work on 64-bit NTVDM for their 64-bit Windows releases. 
MS had full control over this.
Wengier

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 06:00:16 a.m. EDT, Liam Proven 
 wrote:  
 
 On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 01:34, Wengier W via Freedos-user
 wrote:
>
> The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge 
> differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's 
> NTVDM.

Well, yes. The Win9x DOS prompt is real DOS running on a real DOS
kernel which can access hardware.

The 32-bit WinNT one can't: it's a sort of VM, containing a DOS emulator.

The reason the NT one isn't very good is the reason that NT was a
successful product: because it isolates apps from the hardware, making
it more reliable and allowing SMP and things.

This is akin to complaining that a motorcycle is a bad bicycle because
this big heavy engine slows you down. The engine is the point of the
exercise. If you don't use the engine then yes it gets in the way.

> Even OS/2's MVDM did a much better job than XP's NTVDM in emulating DOS.

Yes, it did. But I bought and ran OS/2. Running Fractint for DOS in an
OS/2 DOS box, and then picking one of Fractint's extended screen
modes, reliable crashed OS/2.

It let apps hit the hardware. More compatible, but less stable.

You can have one thing or the other. Not both, unless you time-travel
20Y forwards and emulate the entire computer in software. That's very
inefficient and that itself offends my sense of elegance. :-)

>  The NTVDM only got worse with (32-bit) Windows Vista or 7 -- things such as 
>the full-screen mode were removed from its NTVDM as well.

That is nothing to do with the VDM.  That is because PCs were all
getting 3D cards. Microsoft's devs (and Linux's devs) had no idea what
to do with them. Apple's devs were smarter and worked out how to use a
3D accelerator to speed up a windowing desktop: what you do is, you
render all the window contents as textures, and then you hand those
textures to the 3D accelerator and ask it to render those textures
onto flat rectangles on the screen.

It's called display compositing, and Apple's implementation is called
Quartz Extreme.

Microsoft copied it in Vista. The display is a composited 3D scene
rendered by the GPU. No frame buffer any more, and no way to switch
between full-screen and window any more.

Linux did the same, first with Compiz (AFAICR). But in Linux, the GUI
is in a separate process from the kernel, so you can still switch back
to text mode. Windows can't, because in NT4, Microsoft foolishly moved
the GDI, the Graphics Device Interface, into the kernel. After NT4 the
kernel is running in graphics mode all the time, and it was only about
a decade later that MS realised this was a bad idea and started trying
to disentangle them again.

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Aitor Santamaría]

Hello,

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 12:00, Liam Proven  wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 01:34, Wengier W via Freedos-user
>  wrote:
> >
> > The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge
> differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's
> NTVDM.
>
> Well, yes. The Win9x DOS prompt is real DOS running on a real DOS
> kernel which can access hardware.
>

Not actually. It may access the VxD virtual devices that do the real
hardware access in 32-bit, and are able to coordinate "multiple DOSes"
acceeding the same hardware (including "Windows", that is running in DOS
VM0).


> The 32-bit WinNT one can't: it's a sort of VM, containing a DOS emulator.
>
> The reason the NT one isn't very good is the reason that NT was a
> successful product: because it isolates apps from the hardware, making
> it more reliable and allowing SMP and things.
>
Actually translating BIOS and DOS calls to an OS that is not on the DOS
line, therefore doing not as good as VMM32.VXD (aka DOS386.EXE in previous
versions) and all its VxDs did in Windows 9X.


> Win64 drops 16-bit support. DOS is a 16-bit OS. It went along with
> 16-bit Windows support, no more and no less.
>
I think this is more realistically the real problem (not the graphics).
After all, we could still manage with DOS in a box, even if you can't
switch to full screen.

Aitor
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[tom ehlert]

>> The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge 
>> differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's 
>> NTVDM.

> Well, yes. The Win9x DOS prompt is real DOS running on a real DOS
> kernel which can access hardware.

Well, no. The Win9x DOS prompt is protected mode DOS running on a
protected mode DOS kernel that allows your program to access hardware
as if it were in real mode.

thats no the same.

Tom



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Liam Proven]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 01:34, Wengier W via Freedos-user
 wrote:
>
> The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge 
> differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's 
> NTVDM.

Well, yes. The Win9x DOS prompt is real DOS running on a real DOS
kernel which can access hardware.

The 32-bit WinNT one can't: it's a sort of VM, containing a DOS emulator.

The reason the NT one isn't very good is the reason that NT was a
successful product: because it isolates apps from the hardware, making
it more reliable and allowing SMP and things.

This is akin to complaining that a motorcycle is a bad bicycle because
this big heavy engine slows you down. The engine is the point of the
exercise. If you don't use the engine then yes it gets in the way.

> Even OS/2's MVDM did a much better job than XP's NTVDM in emulating DOS.

Yes, it did. But I bought and ran OS/2. Running Fractint for DOS in an
OS/2 DOS box, and then picking one of Fractint's extended screen
modes, reliable crashed OS/2.

It let apps hit the hardware. More compatible, but less stable.

You can have one thing or the other. Not both, unless you time-travel
20Y forwards and emulate the entire computer in software. That's very
inefficient and that itself offends my sense of elegance. :-)

>  The NTVDM only got worse with (32-bit) Windows Vista or 7 -- things such as 
> the full-screen mode were removed from its NTVDM as well.

That is nothing to do with the VDM.  That is because PCs were all
getting 3D cards. Microsoft's devs (and Linux's devs) had no idea what
to do with them. Apple's devs were smarter and worked out how to use a
3D accelerator to speed up a windowing desktop: what you do is, you
render all the window contents as textures, and then you hand those
textures to the 3D accelerator and ask it to render those textures
onto flat rectangles on the screen.

It's called display compositing, and Apple's implementation is called
Quartz Extreme.

Microsoft copied it in Vista. The display is a composited 3D scene
rendered by the GPU. No frame buffer any more, and no way to switch
between full-screen and window any more.

Linux did the same, first with Compiz (AFAICR). But in Linux, the GUI
is in a separate process from the kernel, so you can still switch back
to text mode. Windows can't, because in NT4, Microsoft foolishly moved
the GDI, the Graphics Device Interface, into the kernel. After NT4 the
kernel is running in graphics mode all the time, and it was only about
a decade later that MS realised this was a bad idea and started trying
to disentangle them again.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-confirms-minwin-is-in-windows-7-after-all/

It only applies to server versions and it's only partial.

>  Meanwhile, 64-bit Windows XP (or higher) never had NTVDM in the first place.

On x86, 64-bit Windows runs in x86-64 mode. x86-64 does not have VM86
any more. It has been removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_8086_mode#64-bit_and_VMX_support

Basically you have to run a full VM, or emulate it.

> Clearly, Microsoft was trying to gradually eliminate the existence of DOS 
> from its Windows releases.

It is not "clear" at all. It's part of the hardware design and MS has
little influence over that. Remember, x86-64 is not even an Intel
design: it is from AMD.

Win64 drops 16-bit support. DOS is a 16-bit OS. It went along with
16-bit Windows support, no more and no less.

-- 
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] dosbox-x update available

[Wengier W via Freedos-user]

 Hello,
> I am puzzled: I mean, XP can run DOS programs directly, without
assistance, can't it?
The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge 
differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's NTVDM. 
Even OS/2's MVDM did a much better job than XP's NTVDM in emulating DOS. The 
NTVDM only got worse with (32-bit) Windows Vista or 7 -- things such as the 
full-screen mode were removed from its NTVDM as well. Meanwhile, 64-bit Windows 
XP (or higher) never had NTVDM in the first place. Clearly, Microsoft was 
trying to gradually eliminate the existence of DOS from its Windows releases. 
DOSBox(-X) emerged around this time exactly to solve such problems (and also 
for other platforms).
Wengier
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 05:05:51 a.m. EDT, Liam Proven 
 wrote:  
 
 On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 07:13, Wengier W via Freedos-user
 wrote:
>
> DOSBox-X's Windows XP support has been there for a long time, which will 
> benefit those who use it (original DOSBox also supports it). I think the 
> pixel-perfect mode patch which you implemented still works too, so that those 
> who use Windows XP (or higher) can enjoy it as well.

(Please, if you can, bottom post on mailing lists. It makes threads
*much* easier to follow.)

I am puzzled: I mean, XP can run DOS programs directly, without
assistance, can't 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 mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Deposite Pirate]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:15:32 +0200
Aitor Santamaría  wrote:
> Yes, on 32-bit versions of Windows (and I think this applies to
> Windws
> Vista/7 at least), there used to be the NTVDM that  can run DOS
> programs fairly well.
> I used to test FD-KEYB there quite a lot, as in case it locks the
> console, you don't need to restart.

Many DOS programs don't work with MS NTVDM. It is in typical microsoft
fashion a bare minimum implementation. Just enough to not anger
business users too much. It seems even ReactOS' NTVDM implementation
has better compatibility with DOS programs. I think it implements some
BIOS interfaces that MS' implementation doesn't. However DOSBox(-X) is
light years ahead in compatibility even though it's not some kind of
hypervisor like NTVDM. So definitely a great thing for some people that
it runs in XP.

-- 
WWW: https://metalpunks.info
GPG: C90CAB7122AC1231


pgptM4PdIU1U4.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Aitor Santamaría]

Hello.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 11:05, Liam Proven  wrote:

> I am puzzled: I mean, XP can run DOS programs directly, without
> assistance, can't it?
>
> Yes, on 32-bit versions of Windows (and I think this applies to Windws
Vista/7 at least), there used to be the NTVDM that  can run DOS programs
fairly well.
I used to test FD-KEYB there quite a lot, as in case it locks the console,
you don't need to restart.

Aitor
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Liam Proven]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 07:13, Wengier W via Freedos-user
 wrote:
>
> DOSBox-X's Windows XP support has been there for a long time, which will 
> benefit those who use it (original DOSBox also supports it). I think the 
> pixel-perfect mode patch which you implemented still works too, so that those 
> who use Windows XP (or higher) can enjoy it as well.

(Please, if you can, bottom post on mailing lists. It makes threads
*much* easier to follow.)

I am puzzled: I mean, XP can run DOS programs directly, without
assistance, can't 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

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Wengier W via Freedos-user]

Hi Anton,
DOSBox-X's Windows XP support has been there for a long time, which will 
benefit those who use it (original DOSBox also supports it). I think the 
pixel-perfect mode patch which you implemented still works too, so that those 
who use Windows XP (or higher) can enjoy it as well.
Wengier

On Aug 13, 2022, at 9:32 PM, Anton Shepelev  wrote:



Wengier Wu:


Yes, most 32-bit Windows builds of DOSBox-X can run on


Windows XP. DOSBox-X also has DOS builds for running in


DOS itself (so that you can emulate a different DOS system


for example).


As happy user of Windows XP, and am very glad that you keep
support of this last sane version Windows.  I hope the
pixel-perfect mode that I implemented still works, in spite
of the difficulties I had in reconciling it with the GUI
configurator.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Anton Shepelev]

Wengier Wu:

> Yes, most 32-bit Windows builds of DOSBox-X can run on
> Windows XP. DOSBox-X also has DOS builds for running in
> DOS itself (so that you can emulate a different DOS system
> for example).

As happy user of Windows XP, and am very glad that you keep
support of this last sane version Windows.  I hope the
pixel-perfect mode that I implemented still works, in spite
of the difficulties I had in reconciling it with the GUI
configurator.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Gabriele Barbone]

Tanks all for answer

Il gio 4 ago 2022, 20:23 Wengier Wu via Freedos-user <
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> ha scritto:

> Hi Gabriele,
>
> Yes, most 32-bit Windows builds of DOSBox-X can run on Windows XP.
> DOSBox-X also has DOS builds for running in DOS itself (so that you can
> emulate a different DOS system for example). The most recent version of
> DOSBox-X is now 0.84.2 / 2022.08.0, which (among other things) added
> network functionality on the DOS side. A packet driver is needed IF network
> functionality (such as IPX and Modem support) is desired.
>
> Wengier
>
> On Aug 4, 2022, at 10:38 AM, Gabriele Barbone  wrote:
>
> 
> Hi dosbox-x can run on Windows XP SP3? I have a old pc
>
> Il ven 8 lug 2022, 15:10 Eric Auer  ha scritto:
>
>>
>> Forwarding from BTTR - the release notes are indeed worth reading :-)
>> After CandyMan found a problem with NDN (Necromancer's Dos Navigator),
>> Wengier provided an updated https://dosbox-x.com/devel-build.html
>> yesterday. The original announcement from BTTR is:
>>
>>
>>
>> DOSBox-X 0.84.1 released!
>>
>> posted by Wengier, 01.07.2022, 22:11
>>
>> DOSBox-X 0.84.1 has now been officially released! Designing to be a
>> cross-platform DOS emulator, it is the goal of DOSBox-X to support
>> different types of DOS software and implement accurate emulation,
>> accurate enough to help make new DOS developments possible with
>> confidence the program will run properly on actual DOS systems.
>>
>> DOSBox-X provides official DOS versions in addition to other platforms.
>> Several accessory files (such as fonts and languages) have been added to
>> the DOS package in this release, and support for TTF output has also
>> been improved in the DOS version. You can download the DOSBox-X 0.84.1
>> DOS package from the DOSBox-X project homepage:
>>
>> https://dosbox-x.com/
>>
>> There are a number of improvements in this latest version, and you can
>> find the release notes for this version (containing the change history)
>> here:
>>
>> * https://dosbox-x.com/release-0.84.1.html
>>
>> The DOS package is self-contained so that you can simply unzip the file
>> and type DOSBOX-X to run in DOS. It is confirmed to work in DOS, and
>> read the included README.TXT file for more information.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Freedos-user mailing list
>> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DosBox-x Windows XP

[Daniel]

DosBox-x is compatible in XP and I use it quite a bit to test stuff and
work on projects along with FreeDOS.  I haven’t yet found any issues runnin
it.  Even installed and ran Windows 98 as well.
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 9:38 AM Gabriele Barbone  wrote:
>
> Hi dosbox-x can run on Windows XP SP3? I have a old pc

Not sure, I think?? they still provide XP-compatible versions
alongside newer Windows versions. BUT! It does run atop FreeDOS with
the included HX files.  ;-)

(quoting the website):

"If you need Windows XP support, you can use either the 32-bit Visual
Studio builds or the 32-bit MinGW low-end builds (but not the standard
MinGW builds). You may also want to use one of the MinGW builds if you
encounter specific problem(s) with the Visual Studio builds (such as
floating point precision issues)."

"Yes, DOSBox-X can officially run on DOS systems as well ... The
HX-DOS package allows you to run DOSBox-X in a real DOS system (MS-DOS
5.0+ or compatible) with the help of the freely-available HX DOS
Extender, which is already included in the recent DOS release
packages."


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Wengier Wu via Freedos-user]

Hi Gabriele,

Yes, most 32-bit Windows builds of DOSBox-X can run on Windows XP. DOSBox-X 
also has DOS builds for running in DOS itself (so that you can emulate a 
different DOS system for example). The most recent version of DOSBox-X is now 
0.84.2 / 2022.08.0, which (among other things) added network functionality on 
the DOS side. A packet driver is needed IF network functionality (such as IPX 
and Modem support) is desired.

Wengier

> On Aug 4, 2022, at 10:38 AM, Gabriele Barbone  wrote:
> 
> Hi dosbox-x can run on Windows XP SP3? I have a old pc 
> 
> Il ven 8 lug 2022, 15:10 Eric Auer  ha scritto:
>> 
>> Forwarding from BTTR - the release notes are indeed worth reading :-)
>> After CandyMan found a problem with NDN (Necromancer's Dos Navigator),
>> Wengier provided an updated https://dosbox-x.com/devel-build.html
>> yesterday. The original announcement from BTTR is:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> DOSBox-X 0.84.1 released!
>> 
>> posted by Wengier, 01.07.2022, 22:11
>> 
>> DOSBox-X 0.84.1 has now been officially released! Designing to be a 
>> cross-platform DOS emulator, it is the goal of DOSBox-X to support 
>> different types of DOS software and implement accurate emulation, 
>> accurate enough to help make new DOS developments possible with 
>> confidence the program will run properly on actual DOS systems.
>> 
>> DOSBox-X provides official DOS versions in addition to other platforms. 
>> Several accessory files (such as fonts and languages) have been added to 
>> the DOS package in this release, and support for TTF output has also 
>> been improved in the DOS version. You can download the DOSBox-X 0.84.1 
>> DOS package from the DOSBox-X project homepage:
>> 
>> https://dosbox-x.com/
>> 
>> There are a number of improvements in this latest version, and you can 
>> find the release notes for this version (containing the change history) 
>> here:
>> 
>> * https://dosbox-x.com/release-0.84.1.html
>> 
>> The DOS package is self-contained so that you can simply unzip the file 
>> and type DOSBOX-X to run in DOS. It is confirmed to work in DOS, and 
>> read the included README.TXT file for more information.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Freedos-user mailing list
>> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

[Gabriele Barbone]

Hi dosbox-x can run on Windows XP SP3? I have a old pc

Il ven 8 lug 2022, 15:10 Eric Auer  ha scritto:

>
> Forwarding from BTTR - the release notes are indeed worth reading :-)
> After CandyMan found a problem with NDN (Necromancer's Dos Navigator),
> Wengier provided an updated https://dosbox-x.com/devel-build.html
> yesterday. The original announcement from BTTR is:
>
>
>
> DOSBox-X 0.84.1 released!
>
> posted by Wengier, 01.07.2022, 22:11
>
> DOSBox-X 0.84.1 has now been officially released! Designing to be a
> cross-platform DOS emulator, it is the goal of DOSBox-X to support
> different types of DOS software and implement accurate emulation,
> accurate enough to help make new DOS developments possible with
> confidence the program will run properly on actual DOS systems.
>
> DOSBox-X provides official DOS versions in addition to other platforms.
> Several accessory files (such as fonts and languages) have been added to
> the DOS package in this release, and support for TTF output has also
> been improved in the DOS version. You can download the DOSBox-X 0.84.1
> DOS package from the DOSBox-X project homepage:
>
> https://dosbox-x.com/
>
> There are a number of improvements in this latest version, and you can
> find the release notes for this version (containing the change history)
> here:
>
> * https://dosbox-x.com/release-0.84.1.html
>
> The DOS package is self-contained so that you can simply unzip the file
> and type DOSBOX-X to run in DOS. It is confirmed to work in DOS, and
> read the included README.TXT file for more information.
>
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 27 2020 11:37, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> On 27/03/2020 11:25, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:
>> Yes, FreeDOS tends to be growing, which makes sense. For old computers,
>> original to that time, EDR-DOS might be a better choice.
>
> Or you might try some minimalistic FreeDOS distribution tailored
> specifically for the truly ancient machines.
>
> http://svarog86.sourceforge.net
>

Yes, that will be it... My last attempt was years ago, FreeDOS 1.1 was
just released and Svarog86 not yet out there (or not yet on my
radar...). I have to find the time to reassamble the PC first.


Thanks for your work!


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

On Mar 27 2020 04:57, Rugxulo wrote:
> XP is dead as a doornail (since 2014), so is even Win7 nowadays. No
> more security fixes. Those old cpus (and even modern ones) all have
> vulnerabilities and various software workarounds, plus microcode
> updates, which each have different costs (slowdowns) associated with
> them.


I know. I'm not using any of this with the internet. If I run software
of that time, off-line, I should be safe against modern attacks. I could
still get an older computer virus. You know, how they used to spread:
from floppy disk to hard drive and back...


> How many cores does the 2007 machine have? AMD has a 64-core machine
> nowadays. Hey, I'm no engineer, but newer has more cores, faster
> single-core (higher IPC), more (faster) RAM, less heat / power
> consumed, better graphics, and a billion other features (faster
> bootup??).


I think the standard back in 2007 was two. I'm not sure, I'll have to
check. It might be a single core with Hyper Treading.


> I'm not saying you can't run older hardware. Just be aware that a lot
> has changed (and improved), even if sometimes there are regressions.


The thing is that I keep those machines as a hobby. I wouldn't know what
to do with them in a production environment. Nothing probably... most
likely get rid of them. But for me they are computer history, so I have
a collection of still working machines. Sadly I'm missing real history
machines, like a NEXTstation or an 8088/8086 PC. Or an DEC Alpha
workstation. A Macintosh running System 6.


In this context it makes sense to run original software on those PCs, so
it would be PC DOS, MS-DOS, DR DOS. PTS-DOS maybe, too. GEM. GEOS. You
name it. FreeDOS would just a more modern addition, allowing e.g. data
exchange to FAT32 storage, if I can connect such "big" drives.


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

[Mateusz Viste]

On 27/03/2020 11:25, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:

Yes, FreeDOS tends to be growing, which makes sense. For old computers,
original to that time, EDR-DOS might be a better choice.


Or you might try some minimalistic FreeDOS distribution tailored 
specifically for the truly ancient machines.


http://svarog86.sourceforge.net

Mateusz


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

On Mar 27 2020 05:14, Rugxulo wrote:
> I only have DR-DOS 7.03, but AFAIK, DR-DOS 5 was compatible to MS-DOS
> 3.3, DR 6 was their 5, and 7 was (of course) 6 compatible (though it
> pretended to be PC-DOS, technically, unless you specifically asked
> elsewhere).
>
> So, yes, FreeDOS should be more compatible than DR-DOS 5 [sic].
>
> Although you could probably still download (non-commercial only)
> EDR-DOS (circa 2005) from the Wayback Machine. Not sure where
> "official" DR-DOS disappeared to either. I guess they don't sell it
> online (anymore??). 7.03 is from 1999 (and the one with TaskMgr,
> limited to 64 MB per task, using its own proprietary EMM386 only with
> mandatory built-in DPMI).
>
> Yes, DJGPP is still updated (e.g. GCC 9.2, BinUtils 2.34, Make 4.3)
> and thus newer than GCCs for "old Linuxes". Though you could probably
> get some Linux guru to recompile newer for your old distro, if you
> asked nicely. Not a lot of libraries for DOS anymore, but some stuff
> still works.


Yes, FreeDOS tends to be growing, which makes sense. For old computers,
original to that time, EDR-DOS might be a better choice. Digital
Research did a hell of a job making CP/M into a real good version of
DOS, with compatibility to MS-DOS i.e. PC DOS. I think DR DOS 6.0 did
that job, although DR DOS 5 (which I still own and used back than, I
even have the original box somewhere!) was my favourite. But I guess
that's just nostalgia. DR DOS 7.03 as well as EDR-DOS seems to be a very
good choice. Take some selected tools from FreeDOS (EMM386 replacement,
ATAPI drivers and such, as well as some solid applications and utils
from FreeDOS) and you will have a great DOS for an original machine.


Anyway, 8 MB RAM seems to be one of the problems, with Linux a big one,
with FreeDOS a small one. The other is disk space. As I mentioned, I
cannot get the standard FreeDOS 1.1 installation installed for that reason.


I assume that FreeDOS will also run very well on such a machine, but all
developement went into making it fit for newer machines, integrating
FAT32 and such, all of which are features not required for this original
machine.


A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 27 2020 04:49, Rugxulo wrote:
> Niklaus Wirth wrote "A Plea for Lean Software" back in 1995. He
> obviously was referring to his [quasi open source] OberonOS with
> compiler and tools. I don't think most people took his advice. He has
> had a lot of good ideas over the years, but as even he will tell you,
> it takes a lot of effort (and a genius) to get things done in such
> lowly conditions. FreeDOS probably isn't exactly what he meant
> (although we have compilers for most of his languages). His "Project
> Oberon" (revised in 2013) is still worth a look.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtlAOdJmeDI

When I saw GeckOS, I thought that anything is possible!


Spoiler-Alert: It turns out, not everything is possible after all...


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:25 AM Louis Santillan  wrote:
>
> These days, it several MBs more than 8MB, but, TinyCoreLinux [0][1] is
> a RAMDisk based Linux that requires less than 48MB.Earlier
> versions ran on far less and even offered network connected, command
> line versions running in under 16MB of RAM on i486DX or better [2].
> Even a mildly loaded i486DX or Pentium will have 24MB or more.
>
> Linux kernels older than 3.0 were far less memory hungry than they are today.

(for comparison)

* 
http://download.tuxfamily.org/antix/docs-antiX-19/FAQ/index.html#_system_requirements

"
antiX should run on most computers, ranging from 192MB old PII systems
with pre-configured 128MB swap to the latest powerful boxes.

antiX-core and antiX-net will run with 128MB RAM plus swap, but don’t
expect miracles!

192MB RAM is the recommended minimum for antiX. 256MB RAM and above is
preferred especially for antiX-full.

antiX-full needs a 5GB minimum hard disk size. antiX-base needs 3GB
and antiX-core needs 1GB. antiX-net needs 0.7GB.
"


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 7:56 AM Mateusz Viste  wrote:
>
> On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:
> > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
>
> Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ:
>
> "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM.
> (...) An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk
> space has been used to run Debian Linux in this way; i.e., both
> networking and basic X11 server functions operated satisfactorily."

Linux dropped 386 [sic] years ago due to complications with having no
CMPXCHG, etc. for atomic whatever. So you need at least a 486
nowadays.

* http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=12165#p12165

ZipSlack 11 (Slackware from 2006, kernel 2.4) used UMSDOS to run atop
FAT. IIRC, it optionally could run in 4 MB with swap enabled,
otherwise 8 MB was minimum (and good luck compiling anything with
GCC!).


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:43 AM  wrote:
>
> The fun fact: Windows XP SP2 on this 2007-machine with 4 GB RAM and HDD
> is up and running as fast as Windows 10 or Linux on my 2018 Ryzen with
> 32 GB RAM and SSD!

XP is dead as a doornail (since 2014), so is even Win7 nowadays. No
more security fixes. Those old cpus (and even modern ones) all have
vulnerabilities and various software workarounds, plus microcode
updates, which each have different costs (slowdowns) associated with
them.

How many cores does the 2007 machine have? AMD has a 64-core machine
nowadays. Hey, I'm no engineer, but newer has more cores, faster
single-core (higher IPC), more (faster) RAM, less heat / power
consumed, better graphics, and a billion other features (faster
bootup??).

* 
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=2004-CPU-3990X-Plus-FX-9590

Try cross-compiling something on both (preferably "make -j"), and see
how long it takes.

* https://github.com/andrewwutw/build-djgpp/releases

And that's not even talking about speedups like SIMD (you know, AVXes
are all the rage nowadays), which older cpus lack. Oh, and VT-X has
improved, which makes a big difference, too (e.g. VBox).

I'm not saying you can't run older hardware. Just be aware that a lot
has changed (and improved), even if sometimes there are regressions.

(You could also boot a Linux jump drive on both, and run some tests.)


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:43 AM  wrote:
>
> Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.

Linux started in 1991 on a 386 with 2 MB of RAM. Granted, newer
releases need a tad more.  ;-)

While outdated (and I'm no expert), for future reference, here's some
lightweight Linux distros (and old Minix):

* https://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZipSlack
* http://download.minix3.org/previous-versions/Intel-2.0.2/

In fact, they should all run atop FAT16, and yes, they will run in
very low amounts of RAM (like 8 MB or even less). Minix 2 used
segmentation for code and data separation and reuse. Having swap also
helped (e.g. ZipSlack).

> Not even Windows NT will work with that amount of RAM, but NT 3.x needs 16 
> MB, NT 4 needs 32 MB.
>
> This is where DOS+Windows 3.x excells!

Word. (jk)

Debatable. I had low-end 486s, which were quite slow and starved for
RAM. I would still be interested in running such machines for
nostalgia and benchmarking. I know how to do "some" simple and fun
things, so I wouldn't mind too badly, BUT it's much more fun with at
least a Pentium (and FPU).

Just to reiterate, yes you can do a few things (fun or useful or
both!) in such low-spec'd machines, but it's not as easy as it sounds.
We've lost the touch, generally speaking, to care for older "classic"
hardware with decent (slim) software.

Niklaus Wirth wrote "A Plea for Lean Software" back in 1995. He
obviously was referring to his [quasi open source] OberonOS with
compiler and tools. I don't think most people took his advice. He has
had a lot of good ideas over the years, but as even he will tell you,
it takes a lot of effort (and a genius) to get things done in such
lowly conditions. FreeDOS probably isn't exactly what he meant
(although we have compilers for most of his languages). His "Project
Oberon" (revised in 2013) is still worth a look.

* https://inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/
* http://www.projectoberon.com/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

[Louis Santillan]

These days, it several MBs more than 8MB, but, TinyCoreLinux [0][1] is
a RAMDisk based Linux that requires less than 48MB.Earlier
versions ran on far less and even offered network connected, command
line versions running in under 16MB of RAM on i486DX or better [2].
Even a mildly loaded i486DX or Pentium will have 24MB or more.

Linux kernels older than 3.0 were far less memory hungry than they are today.

[0] http://tinycorelinux.net/faq.html#req
[1] 
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/tiny-core-linux-is-your-smallest-choice-for-an-operating-system/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiny_Core_Linux=422419994

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:57 AM  wrote:
>
> On Mar 25 2020 18:51, Jose Antonio Senna wrote:
> > Today userbeit...@abwesend.de (Robinson West ?) said:
> >
> >> Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
> >   About 1998 I did run (plod was a better description)
> >  Red Hat 5.0 (kernel 2.0.32) in a 486 DX-50 with 4 MB
> >  of RAM, but in text mode only. The machine and the
> >  installation CD are still here. I used DR-DOS 5 and
> >  loadlin to boot, because the machine could not boot
> >  from CD.
>
>
> Sorry, yes, old Linux version will work. I also still have a box of SuSE
> Linux 4.2 laying around somewhere, and a quite old version of Debian on
> a CD or DVD. Since the 486 does not have a working optical drive, I
> would have to install it on my current desktop using something like
> VirtualBox or QEMU, forcing it to reflect a 486, and then transfer the
> installation.
>
>
> I was referring to a current system. I think, not even the kernel will
> boot on a system with only 8 MB memory. A 2.4 kernel might, but I am not
> even sure about a 2.6 kernel.
>
>
> I also have DR DOS 5 laying around, an original version. I might play
> with that, but I was curious about FreeDOS, because it is somewhat more
> recent in some respects than old DOSes and old Linuxes. But I might be
> wrong...
>
>
> A.
>
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 25 2020 18:21, andrew fabbro wrote:
> Of course, you're comparing a 20-year-old distro with a 30-year-old
> "distro" of DOS :-)
>
> You get more functionality in a mid-90s Linux than a late-80s DOS.


Actually, DOS had a lot to offer. On such a machine it was quite fast,
compared to a Unix system with a blown X11 for graphics. On DOS there
were way more small and specialized little programs available, some
quite unique.


I think you cannot compare the two. Linux has its advantages, but DOS
does too. It's all about the software and the use cases. (Think about
computer games.)


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 25 2020 18:51, Jose Antonio Senna wrote:
> Today userbeit...@abwesend.de (Robinson West ?) said:
>
>> Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
>   About 1998 I did run (plod was a better description)
>  Red Hat 5.0 (kernel 2.0.32) in a 486 DX-50 with 4 MB
>  of RAM, but in text mode only. The machine and the
>  installation CD are still here. I used DR-DOS 5 and
>  loadlin to boot, because the machine could not boot
>  from CD.


Sorry, yes, old Linux version will work. I also still have a box of SuSE
Linux 4.2 laying around somewhere, and a quite old version of Debian on
a CD or DVD. Since the 486 does not have a working optical drive, I
would have to install it on my current desktop using something like
VirtualBox or QEMU, forcing it to reflect a 486, and then transfer the
installation.


I was referring to a current system. I think, not even the kernel will
boot on a system with only 8 MB memory. A 2.4 kernel might, but I am not
even sure about a 2.6 kernel.


I also have DR DOS 5 laying around, an original version. I might play
with that, but I was curious about FreeDOS, because it is somewhat more
recent in some respects than old DOSes and old Linuxes. But I might be
wrong...


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

[Jose Antonio Senna]

Today userbeit...@abwesend.de (Robinson West ?) said:

>Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.

  About 1998 I did run (plod was a better description) 
 Red Hat 5.0 (kernel 2.0.32) in a 486 DX-50 with 4 MB 
 of RAM, but in text mode only. The machine and the 
 installation CD are still here. I used DR-DOS 5 and
 loadlin to boot, because the machine could not boot 
 from CD.





___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[andrew fabbro]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:08 AM ZB  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote:
>
> > On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:
> > > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
> >
> > Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ:
> >
> > "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM.
> (...)
> > An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk space
> has
> > been used to run Debian Linux in this way; i.e., both networking and
> basic
> > X11 server functions operated satisfactorily."
>
> That was valid around 20 years ago... :D  try this with any present distro
>

Of course, you're comparing a 20-year-old distro with a 30-year-old
"distro" of DOS :-)

You get more functionality in a mid-90s Linux than a late-80s DOS.

-- 
andrew fabbro
and...@fabbro.org
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Mateusz Viste]

On 25/03/2020 14:07, ZB wrote:

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote:


On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:

Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.


Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ:

"Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM. (...)
An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk space has
been used to run Debian Linux in this way; i.e., both networking and basic
X11 server functions operated satisfactorily."


That was valid around 20 years ago... :D


Of course, that is why I am referring to Buzz. Now, why would anyone 
want to run a recent distribution on a 386? Linux distributions from 25 
years ago work just as well as they did back then.


Mateusz


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[ZB]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote:

> On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:
> > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
> 
> Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ:
> 
> "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM. (...)
> An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk space has
> been used to run Debian Linux in this way; i.e., both networking and basic
> X11 server functions operated satisfactorily."

That was valid around 20 years ago... :D  try this with any present distro
-- 
regards,
Zbigniew


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Mateusz Viste]

On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:

Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.


Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ:

"Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM. 
(...) An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk 
space has been used to run Debian Linux in this way; i.e., both 
networking and basic X11 server functions operated satisfactorily."


Mateusz


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 25 2020 01:36, Rugxulo wrote:
> I heard that XP was designed to get to the desktop in 30 secs. Not
> necessarily responsive nor able to be used just yet, but at least it
> would show up (in optimal conditions). Of course, that was P3/P4
> (single core) era.
>
> Of course, nowadays we have SSDs and other speedups, but it still
> varies due to many factors.


Fun fact...


I have an old Intel Celeron in my cellar, a gift from a friend. It has a
CPU that is 64-bit capable, so it must be Core 2 technology. It is from
~2006/2007 or so? It originally ran Windows XP, so I tested it with
Windows 7 and 10, but it wasn't worth the effort. Too slow.

After reinstalling Windows XP SP3 with all the updates, it still felt
somewhat sluggish, not responsive without a short delay. So I left it.

Somewhat later I wanted to test an old game that required Windows 2000
or XP, but somehow wasn't working on my setup. So I performed a clean
installation of Windows XP SP2.


The fun fact: Windows XP SP2 on this 2007-machine with 4 GB RAM and HDD
is up and running as fast as Windows 10 or Linux on my 2018 Ryzen with
32 GB RAM and SSD!


A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

On Mar 25 2020 at 01:28, andrew fabbro wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:52 PM  wrote:
>
>> Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos
>> on. Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is
>> going to be pretty have for that machine. Some people aren't grabbing a
>> multi core modern computer when they use freedos. Some of us want to use
>> old computers, 386 anyone?
>> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. Modern Linux distributions,
>> don't expect them to work with less than a 1 Ghz processor with at least 1
>> gig of ram. Even the popular arm processors that run Linux, Raspberry Pi 3
>> and Pi 4, run at over 1 ghz. Freedos is an OS that works on any ancient PC
>> including dinosaurs like the veritable 8086. Just saying ;-)
>>
> Maybe you meant "venerable 8086" :-)
>
> It's true that Linux wants a 386 at a minimum, but it hardly needs 1Gz or
> 1GB or RAM.  Sure if you want a GUI but then DOS isn't going to meet your
> needs either.  You can run some Linux distros or various *BSD distros on
> tiny amounts of RAM.  Debian Wheezy only requires 64MB:
> https://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/amd64/ch03s04.html.en
>
> Likewise, OpenBSD will run on x86 with as little as 64MB of RAM.  128-256
> is more reasonable if you want to do anything outside the kernel.


Only 64 MB? My 386SX only had 2 MB. If I remember correctly, because it
might have been 4 MB.


My 486 waiting in the cellar has 8 MB. It is a true ISA machine, first
lot of 486s: Intel 80486DX-50, running the bus speed also at 50 MHz,
like the CPU. So the CPU/bus ratio was 1:1, like it had always been
before. If I remember correctly, this was the problem of getting CPU
speeds up, which is why the later introduced DX2, 66 MHz and 50 MHz, is
partly slower than the original DX @50 MHz, because the DX2 uses a 2:1
ratio on the bus. Because for I/O throughput data had to be shifted from
the CPU to the memory to the ISA IDE adapter card and back, the 50 MHz
bus was an advantage.


Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. Not even
Windows NT will work with that amount of RAM, but NT 3.x needs 16 MB, NT
4 needs 32 MB.

This is where DOS+Windows 3.x excells!


A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Andrew Robins]

 
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 8:21 PM, Robert Riebisch wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> > Mind - although I still have both 430CDS' in storage for uncompleted 
> > project updates, I had to wave the white flag on productively using Puppy 
> > for kids use, on those particular specs. What worked best in it was a 2GB 
> > sd-card with FreeDOS 1.1 configured to boot up Ronald Blankendaal's 
> > "Access" most excellent gui environment (He of DosBOXGameLauncher fame, 
> > here http://members.quicknet.nl/blankendaalr/dbgl/). From there, my kids 
> > could immediately access any one of dozens of top-rated classic DOS games I 
> > had squirrelled away from a range of "abandonware" sites. For a 16MB 
> > edo-dram laptop it would boot in about 11 seconds. *snap!* 
> > My *intention* was to have imaged a distro-like "FreeDOS4Kids" that could 
> > be copied to a flash card and via an ATA-adapter replacing the ancient HDD. 
> > By using such an image route you could circumvent some native installation 
> > issues (but probably replace them with other 'gotchas').  Life has overrun 
> > me on that particular escapade however. 
> > Thanks for the erudite first-hand histories in this thread guys - 
> > fascinating reading, Cheers :)
> 
> Paul Blair once had a distro called FUZOMA:
> http://superkeen.com/peacecorpsweblog/?s=FUZOMA=init
> 
> The website seems a little broken, but downloads are still working.
> 
> 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

Thanks Robert for the heads-up on Fuzoma - for posterity I downloaded a cd iso 
version of v1.7 - the last version Paul Blair had up. Really interesting 
project he had going there, with the Peace Corps. Cheers :)


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Robert Riebisch]

Hi Andrew,

> Mind - although I still have both 430CDS' in storage for uncompleted project 
> updates, I had to wave the white flag on productively using Puppy for kids 
> use, on those particular specs. What worked best in it was a 2GB sd-card with 
> FreeDOS 1.1 configured to boot up Ronald Blankendaal's "Access" most 
> excellent gui environment (He of DosBOXGameLauncher fame, here 
> http://members.quicknet.nl/blankendaalr/dbgl/). From there, my kids could 
> immediately access any one of dozens of top-rated classic DOS games I had 
> squirrelled away from a range of "abandonware" sites. For a 16MB edo-dram 
> laptop it would boot in about 11 seconds. *snap!* 
> My *intention* was to have imaged a distro-like "FreeDOS4Kids" that could be 
> copied to a flash card and via an ATA-adapter replacing the ancient HDD. By 
> using such an image route you could circumvent some native installation 
> issues (but probably replace them with other 'gotchas').  Life has overrun me 
> on that particular escapade however. 
> Thanks for the erudite first-hand histories in this thread guys - fascinating 
> reading, Cheers :)

Paul Blair once had a distro called FUZOMA:
http://superkeen.com/peacecorpsweblog/?s=FUZOMA=init

The website seems a little broken, but downloads are still working.

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] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[bruce.axtens]

I spent two years in Papua New Guinea in the mid 1980s using (and developing
on and for) an Altos 8000-10 using MP/M II. Mostly CB-80 with bits of
assembler. Interesting/fun times. 
 
> Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.
Totally agree with that. 

Bruce.





___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Felix Miata]

dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 15:53 (UTC-0400):

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I 
>> couldn't tell
>> any difference from SysV.

> With what sort of hardware?

Based on the descriptions on 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altos_Computer_Systems
it must have been an Altos 686. It shipped with a 500MB internal HD, to which we
later attached an 80MB Micropolis external HD from Altos. We had an IBM PC AT 
with
20MB CMI HD, 2.5MB RAM (512kb originally), and PC DOS 3.1 (originally), and a
256kb RAM IBM PC XT with 10MB HD running terminal emulation software to talk to
the Altos, otherwise used for running Lotus 1-2-3, a pair of terminals (1 
Altos, 1
Wyse, IIRC), a very loud Genicom dot matrix serial printer we kept in an 
insulated
enclosure, and an original parallel port HP LaserJet requiring a cartridge to
print IRS forms. To that fleet we also early on added an Iomega Bernoulli Box 
10MB
cartridge drive, and later a Corona portable 8088 PC with 256kb RAM and 10MB HD,
later upgraded to 512kb or 640kb RAM to better handle larger spreadsheets, and 
NEC
V20 CPU.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Felix Miata]

dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 21:59 (UTC-0400):

> SeaMonkey 2.X couldn't be built static.
Please reconcile this statement with the Mozilla folk's representation that 
every
binary app downloadable from mozilla.org, including all SeaMonkey versions, is
static built.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[dmccunney]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 8:37 PM Rugxulo  wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM dmccunney  wrote:
> >
> > The person who passed it on said [Transmeta Crusoe] was "Slow, slow, SLOW".
> > No surprise - it came with WindowsXP SP2, and took *8* minutes to simply
> > *boot*, and a lot more to do anything once up.
>
> I heard that XP was designed to get to the desktop in 30 secs. Not
> necessarily responsive nor able to be used just yet, but at least it
> would show up (in optimal conditions). Of course, that was P3/P4
> (single core) era.

I don't recall my installations coming up that quickly, but on decent
HW it was responsive enough.

I ran it dual-booting with Ubuntu on a 32bit desktop with a dual-core
Intel CPU.  That was fun.  The machine had 4GB RAM, but for technical
reasons XP could only see/use about 3.2GB of it.  I found a freeware
RAMdisk that could see/use the RAM Windows couldn't see, and had a
768MB RAMdisk seen as Z:.

First step was putting Firefox cache on it, which was easy and could
be done in about:config on Firefox.  Next step was putting the Firefox
*profile* on the RAMdisk.  That took more fiddling.  The profile was
stored in a Zip archive on the HD, and unzipped to the RAMdisk when XP
booted via a Startup script.  A custom Firefox profile pointed at the
RAMdisk as the location of the profile to use.  Shutdown was trickier.
I needed to intercept the shutdown command and run another script that
would zip the copy on the RAMdisk back to the hard drive to catch
changes made in that session.  Because I used XP Pro, I could use
Group Policy Editor to set up something to do that.  The shutdown
script created five days worth of backups with the date as part of the
name.  If I had an Oops! moment ans shot myself in the foot I could
restore from a previous version and continue. If the PC crashed and
burned, I lost only changes I might have made in that session, and I
didn't bother preserving cache. I have fast broadband and simply to
rebuild cache from scratch.

> Of course, nowadays we have SSDs and other speedups, but it still
> varies due to many factors.

The limits on the p2110 were IDE4 HD (BIOS limitation, so swapping in
a faster drive wouldn't assist) and proof network performance.
(Internet access was dead slow, even connected by CAT5 cable to my
router.)

> > WinXP wants 512MB *minimum* to think about working.
> > On the p2110, it did a good job of emulating mainframe "death by thrashing".
>
> I was using a P4 with only 128 MB for a year or so (about ten years
> ago). I used Opera instead of (thrashing) Firefox, which was good
> enough for lightweight browsing and email (and NTVDM). That was before
> Opera became Chrome (Blink?) based.

I looked at an assortment of browsers.  Firefox was way too big.
Opera was better, as was earlier Chrome, but that's not saying a lot.
They invoked faster, but performance once up left a lot to be desired
because of poor network performance.  The big hobble was really poor
disk I/O, so any application of real size was a problem.

On the Puppy side, the default browser was SeaMonkey 1.1, but it was
increasingly behind the web standards curve, and simply didn't handle
a lot of sites.  I gave up on it fast.  (And the 1.x branch was no
longer supported or getting patches. It was being built in his
basement by a Mozilla engineer who really wanted to turn off the
machine doing it.  Puppy really needed static builds of software, and
SeaMonkey 2.X couldn't be built static.

32bit Firefox ran okay on the Ubuntu side, but still suffered from
poor I/O.  Chrome pre-Blink was the better option.  But poor network
performance meant *no* browser would provide a happy experience.  (IE5
sucked wind on the Win2K side.)

> > Repartition, reformat, set it up to quad-boot Win2K (which runs in
> > 256MB RAM,) Puppy Linux, Ubuntu Linux and FreeDOS.
>
> Win 2000 was notable for not "phoning home", but overall it wasn't
> much slimmer than XP (and only the latter was targeted at home users).

I didn't care about phoning home, and it *would* run in 240MB RAM.  I
just stripped out everything that *could* be stripped out of Startup.
A big save was turning off Windows Update.  Win2K no longer got
patches, and disabling Windows Update save a SVCHOST.EXE process and
10MB RAM.

I did have a few applications that needed at least XP to run, but I
could live without them.

> Although XP 64-bit (NT 5.2) in 2005 was a (relatively) rare release,
> too. Both died in 2010 and 2014, respectively. (Obviously, 7 just died
> earlier this year. I still barely use it, but )

I know people still trying to run Win7.  I don't recommend it.  I'm
actually pleased with Win10 Pro, but then, I have the HW to support
it.

> > Puppy Linux is designed for older, less powerful hardware. (A poster
> > on the Puppy forums described creating a dedicated media server based
> > on Puppy that ran on an ancient Toshiba laptop with *16MB* RAM.
>
> Yes, but Puppy was much leaner in the old days (2.x??). It's 

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Ralf Quint]

On 3/24/2020 12:53 PM, dmccunney wrote:

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Felix Miata  wrote:
I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I 
couldn't tell

any difference from SysV.

With what sort of hardware?

Xenix, if memory serves, began based on Unix System III and was
gradually enhanced to make it SysV compatible. Depending upon what you
were doing, you might not have run into the differences between System
III and System V.

And Xenix, if memory serves again, was originally a Microsoft product,
back when they were peripherally in the Unix business.


I was working in '83-'85 at a company where we also ran Altos 286 
machines with Xenix. As well as running Unix SysV on Sage and Cromemco 
machines with both Motorola 68000 and 68010. The later had NOT a have 
buildin MMU, but allowed for cooperation with the OPTIONAL 68451MMU 
controller chip. The 80286 however had a basic MMU onchip.


And Microsoft was not just "peripherally" involved in the Unix business, 
well, at least as much as they were at that time in the OS business with 
MS-DOS. Xenix btw was licensed directly from AT



  At the time "second sourcing" was the rule, so they licensed the Santa Cruz
Operation to also sell Xenix.  When MS decided to get out of the Unix
market and concentrate on Windows, SCO became the Xenix vendor, and
enhanced Xenix to SysV compatibility and offered it as SCO Unix.


SCO was not a second source, they bought the  Xenix business from 
Microsoft, when those guys rather quickly realized that all the 
supposedly cheaper micro processor based systems were tried to be sold 
at a price point close to the existing mini computers at the time, and 
hence didn't sell anywhere near the numbers they had hoped for.


It was not OS that brought the bacon home for Microsoft in those years, 
it was their variety of programming languages/compilers as well as the 
fledgling user applications like Word and Multiplan...



OS/2, a collaboration between IBM and MS, was supposed to be the New!,
Improved! OS.  It foundered due to disagreements between IBM and MS.
MS *wanted* to skip the 286 and develop for the 386.  That was a
sensible notion, and had IBM agreed we might all be running it now.
But IBM had promised support for the 286, so...
ts/listinfo/freedos


OS/2 came about, as far as Microsoft was concerned, because their 
attempt to get into the slowly growing Unix market didn't go as planned. 
It allowed them to bring their core business into a new market (OS) that 
could take advantage of the rapidly increasing capabilities of the newer 
microprocessors, something that wasn't really possible with DOS. And 
they saw the OS business now more of a bread winner, as they quickly 
lost ground in the programming language business (mainly the competition 
from newcomer Borland, as well as others) leaving only the application 
market, once they got a usable GUI system for desktops on the market 
with Windows 3.x.


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] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[andrew fabbro]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:52 PM  wrote:

> Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos
> on. Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is
> going to be pretty have for that machine. Some people aren't grabbing a
> multi core modern computer when they use freedos. Some of us want to use
> old computers, 386 anyone?
> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. Modern Linux distributions,
> don't expect them to work with less than a 1 Ghz processor with at least 1
> gig of ram. Even the popular arm processors that run Linux, Raspberry Pi 3
> and Pi 4, run at over 1 ghz. Freedos is an OS that works on any ancient PC
> including dinosaurs like the veritable 8086. Just saying ;-)
>

Maybe you meant "venerable 8086" :-)

It's true that Linux wants a 386 at a minimum, but it hardly needs 1Gz or
1GB or RAM.  Sure if you want a GUI but then DOS isn't going to meet your
needs either.  You can run some Linux distros or various *BSD distros on
tiny amounts of RAM.  Debian Wheezy only requires 64MB:
https://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/amd64/ch03s04.html.en

Likewise, OpenBSD will run on x86 with as little as 64MB of RAM.  128-256
is more reasonable if you want to do anything outside the kernel.

Be advised that if you try to run either on a 386 or 486 you may spend the
first day waiting for the system to generate its host SSH key :-)

TinyCore is another tiny-mem option...runs in 28-48MB of RAM, better in
128MB: http://www.tinycorelinux.net/faq.html#req

"Some of us want to use old computers"

If you're using a sub-Pentium machine in 2020 it's either because (a) you
have a very specialized piece of legacy code, (b) you have a program that
cannot be emulated/virtualized for some reason, or (c) you are a bit
eccentric.

-- 
andrew fabbro
and...@fabbro.org
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM dmccunney  wrote:
>
> The person who passed it on said [Transmeta Crusoe] was "Slow, slow, SLOW".
> No surprise - it came with WindowsXP SP2, and took *** minutes to simply
> *boot*, and a lot more to do anything once up.

I heard that XP was designed to get to the desktop in 30 secs. Not
necessarily responsive nor able to be used just yet, but at least it
would show up (in optimal conditions). Of course, that was P3/P4
(single core) era.

Of course, nowadays we have SSDs and other speedups, but it still
varies due to many factors.

> WinXP wants 512MB *minimum* to think about working.
> On the p2110, it did a good job of emulating mainframe "death by thrashing".

I was using a P4 with only 128 MB for a year or so (about ten years
ago). I used Opera instead of (thrashing) Firefox, which was good
enough for lightweight browsing and email (and NTVDM). That was before
Opera became Chrome (Blink?) based.

> Repartition, reformat, set it up to quad-boot Win2K (which runs in
> 256MB RAM,) Puppy Linux, Ubuntu Linux and FreeDOS.

Win 2000 was notable for not "phoning home", but overall it wasn't
much slimmer than XP (and only the latter was targeted at home users).
Although XP 64-bit (NT 5.2) in 2005 was a (relatively) rare release,
too. Both died in 2010 and 2014, respectively. (Obviously, 7 just died
earlier this year. I still barely use it, but )

> Puppy Linux is designed for older, less powerful hardware. (A poster
> on the Puppy forums described creating a dedicated media server based
> on Puppy that ran on an ancient Toshiba laptop with *16MB* RAM.

Yes, but Puppy was much leaner in the old days (2.x??). It's changed a
lot, and there were/are many (incompatible) derivatives. Still, I like
it for what it does.

> He had to create the system image on a more powerful machine, write it to
> a hard drive, and swap the HD into the Toshiba to boot and run it, but
> it worked once he did.)

Older machines didn't boot from USB jump drives. (Try PLoP boot manager.)

> Ubuntu isn't, but by installing from the Minimal CD which booted to a
> command line, and picking and choosing what got installed through
> apt-get, it was possible to get a working installation.  (Using ext4
> as the file system on both Linux instances helped.)

For a simple cmdline *nix install (with most common POSIX tools),
something like FreeBSD or Minix would probably suffice. IIRC, the
requirements were still pretty low for FreeBSD (64 MB RAM, 486 DX). Or
you could try ancient Slackware 11 (ZipSlack from 2006).

> The problem on all of them was less CPU speed and RAM, and more
> constricted I/O due to IDE4 HD and poor network performance.  The
> *OSes* ran okay.  Large apps did not.

RAM is usually the biggest bottleneck. I'm (almost) surprised they
still sell machines with "only" 4 GB of RAM, especially now that
everything is always 64-bit.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Andrew Robins]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 3:30 AM, dmccunney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:52 PM  wrote:
> >

> >... Puppy Linux is designed for older, less powerful hardware. (A poster
> on the Puppy forums described creating a dedicated media server based
> on Puppy that ran on an ancient Toshiba laptop with *16MB* RAM.  He
> had to create the system image on a more powerful machine, write it to
> a hard drive, and swap the HD into the Toshiba to boot and run it, but
> it worked once he did.)
>
That was me :) in one of my alter-egos 
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=48214

Mind - although I still have both 430CDS' in storage for uncompleted project 
updates, I had to wave the white flag on productively using Puppy for kids use, 
on those particular specs. What worked best in it was a 2GB sd-card with 
FreeDOS 1.1 configured to boot up Ronald Blankendaal's "Access" most excellent 
gui environment (He of DosBOXGameLauncher fame, here 
http://members.quicknet.nl/blankendaalr/dbgl/). From there, my kids could 
immediately access any one of dozens of top-rated classic DOS games I had 
squirrelled away from a range of "abandonware" sites. For a 16MB edo-dram 
laptop it would boot in about 11 seconds. *snap!* 
My *intention* was to have imaged a distro-like "FreeDOS4Kids" that could be 
copied to a flash card and via an ATA-adapter replacing the ancient HDD. By 
using such an image route you could circumvent some native installation issues 
(but probably replace them with other 'gotchas').  Life has overrun me on that 
particular escapade however. 
Thanks for the erudite first-hand histories in this thread guys - fascinating 
reading, Cheers :)


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[dmccunney]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Felix Miata  wrote:
> dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400):
> > mich...@robinson-west.com wrote:
>
> >> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way.
>
> > *Unix* didn't run on a 286.  There were a couple of attempts
> > (including one from AT)  that died horribly due to lack of HW memory
> > management.  It only became practical when the 386 was in common use.
>
> I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I couldn't 
> tell
> any difference from SysV.

With what sort of hardware?

Xenix, if memory serves, began based on Unix System III and was
gradually enhanced to make it SysV compatible. Depending upon what you
were doing, you might not have run into the differences between System
III and System V.

And Xenix, if memory serves again, was originally a Microsoft product,
back when they were peripherally in the Unix business.  At the time
"second sourcing" was the rule, so they licensed the Santa Cruz
Operation to also sell Xenix.  When MS decided to get out of the Unix
market and concentrate on Windows, SCO became the Xenix vendor, and
enhanced Xenix to SysV compatibility and offered it as SCO Unix.  (I
was a sysadmin on SCO Unix machines. I was *very* happy to be shut of
it when my employer switched to Sun hardware running Solaris and Intel
hardware running Linux.)

Because the 286 didn't have proper hardware memory management and true
virtualization, trying to run Unix on it tended to be an exercise in
frustration.

I recall when the 286 came out, and everyone was waiting for a new
version of DOS that could take advantage of what it offered.  In
practice, AT class machines with 286s were just fast DOS workstations.

OS/2, a collaboration between IBM and MS, was supposed to be the New!,
Improved! OS.  It foundered due to disagreements between IBM and MS.
MS *wanted* to skip the 286 and develop for the 386.  That was a
sensible notion, and had IBM agreed we might all be running it now.
But IBM had promised support for the 286, so...

> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
__
Dennis


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[geneb]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020, Felix Miata wrote:


dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400):


mich...@robinson-west.com wrote:



Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way.



*Unix* didn't run on a 286.  There were a couple of attempts
(including one from AT)  that died horribly due to lack of HW memory
management.  It only became practical when the 386 was in common use.


I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I couldn't 
tell
any difference from SysV.


Don't forget SCO Xenix 286. ;)

g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Felix Miata]

dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400):

> mich...@robinson-west.com wrote:

>> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way.

> *Unix* didn't run on a 286.  There were a couple of attempts
> (including one from AT)  that died horribly due to lack of HW memory
> management.  It only became practical when the 386 was in common use.

I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I couldn't 
tell
any difference from SysV.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[dmccunney]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:52 PM  wrote:
>
> Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos on. 
> Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is going 
> to be pretty have for that machine.

I run an Android port of DOSbox on an older and less powerful tablet.
It works fine, and supports a few old character mode DOS apps.(like
the VDE WordStar clone editor) and games (like DOS ports on Unix Larn
and VMS Empire).  It's a tickle to get a working DOS command line on
an Android tablet, though you really need an external KB, and you
really need to run either FreeDOS's COMMAND.COM implementation or
4DOS.  The version of command bundled with DOSbox implements just
enough to let you type th4e name of the game you want to play and
launch it.

> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way.

*Unix* didn't run on a 286.  There were a couple of attempts
(including one from AT)  that died horribly due to lack of HW memory
management.  It only became practical when the 386 was in common use.

I still own an AT 3B1, a single user Unix workstation designed by
Convergent Technologies and sold by AT  It has a *10mhz* Motorola
68010 CPU - the first 680X0 CPU with HW memory management- and can
boot and run AT Unix System V R2 in "1MB* RAM.  Give it more and it
flies.   A client of the systems house I used to work for had one
running a custom distribution management application, and supporting
four terminals and a printer. Worked fine.

> Modern Linux distributions, don't expect them to work with less than a 1 Ghz 
> processor with at least 1 gig of ram.

That depends on your expectations.  I have an ancient Fujitsu p2110
notebook that was a pass along from a friend who upgraded but didn't
want to throw it out.  It had a <1ghz Transmeta Crusoe CPU, which was
an early attempt at power saving, and Transmeta is now mostly
remembered as Linus Torvalds' first employer when he emigrated to the
states.  It had a whopping *256MB* of RAM, and the Crusoe CPU grabbed
16MB off the top for code morphing.

The person who passed it on said it was "Slow, slow, SLOW".  No
surprise - it came with WindowsXP SP2, and took *** minutes to simply
*boot*, and a lot more to do anything once up. WinXP wants 512MB
*minimum* to think about working.  On the p2110, it did a good job of
emulating mainframe "death by thrashing".

Repartition, reformat, set it up to quad-boot Win2K (which runs in
256MB RAM,) Puppy Linux, Ubuntu Linux and FreeDOS.

Puppy Linux is designed for older, less powerful hardware. (A poster
on the Puppy forums described creating a dedicated media server based
on Puppy that ran on an ancient Toshiba laptop with *16MB* RAM.  He
had to create the system image on a more powerful machine, write it to
a hard drive, and swap the HD into the Toshiba to boot and run it, but
it worked once he did.)

Ubuntu isn't, but by installing from the Minimal CD which booted to a
command line, and picking and choosing what got installed through
apt-get, it was possible to get a working installation.  (Using ext4
as the file system on both Linux instances helped.)

The problem on all of them was less CPU speed and RAM, and more
constricted I/O due to IDE4 HD and poor network performance.  The
*OSes* ran okay.  Large apps did not.

But it *was* possible to get a working Linux installation, for
suitable values of "working".

(I did it as an experiment to see what performance I could get from
ancient HW *without* throwing money at it.  Actual work was done
elsewhere.  I haven't tried to boot it in a long time.)

> -- Michael C. Robinson
__
Dennis


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:52 PM  wrote:
>
> Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos on.
> Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is going
> to be pretty have for that machine.

Obviously, but my own Pentium 4 from 2002 (mostly) died many years
ago. I was still minimally testing it via floppy and USB (via PLoP
boot manager) with some simple networking (via packet driver) a few
years ago.

But, no offense, hardware is very cheap nowadays, and a P4 is very
outdated. I'm totally sympathetic, but we've jumped the shark. No one
cares about old machines like that anymore (except luddites like us).
Modern computers are way different (ahem, AVX-512).

> Some people aren't grabbing a multi core modern computer when they use 
> freedos.

BIOS/CSM will die forever in 2020, allegedly, according to Intel.
Luckily, most new machines all have hardware VT-X (EPT) extensions, so
we can at least run FreeDOS speedily under VBox or KVM (QEMU) with
their fake BIOSes. (I've not tested any CoreBoot / LibreBoot machines
nor SeaBIOS payloads, but it presumably works for some limited
hardware, according to what I've heard.)

> Some of us want to use old computers, 386 anyone?

You mean like this? (Don't get your hopes up.)

* https://github.com/MiSTer-devel/ao486_MiSTer

> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way.

ELKS will (or even old Minix 2.0.2), but that's not quite the same.

> Modern Linux distributions, don't expect them to work with less than a 1 Ghz 
> processor
> with at least 1 gig of ram.

Even worse, actually!

Yeah, DOSBox itself needs 1 Ghz just to emulate a "fast" 486 DX2 with
(max) 64 MB of RAM. It doesn't go higher than Pentium, which leaves
out a lot of "newer" stuff. VirtualBox is better overall, but DOSBox
is better for games (that's literally all it's meant for). N.B. I'm
not too familiar with VDosPlus or various other forks, but they aim to
focus away from gaming towards productivity.

> Even the popular arm processors that run Linux, Raspberry Pi 3 and Pi 4,
> run at over 1 ghz. Freedos is an OS that works on any ancient PC including
> dinosaurs like the veritable 8086. Just saying ;-)

Different niches, yes. Both are good in their own ways. Just some have
an easier time attracting volunteers. "A poor carpenter blames his
tools!"

You know there are several Windows 10 laptops running natively atop
ARM64 nowadays? And they emulate Win32 [sic] w/ SSE2 (aka, P4)
userland software and DirectX (9-12). These are "always on" mobile
laptops using phone/mobile data with extremely good battery life (20+
hours). They're using Qualcomm Snapdragon, IIRC. Highly intriguing (as
even MSVC has native ARM target support nowadays). Granted, that
probably?? doesn't include NTVDM, alas ...!


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[michael]

Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos on. 
Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is going 
to be pretty have for that machine. Some people aren't grabbing a multi core 
modern computer when they use freedos. Some of us want to use old computers, 
386 anyone?
Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. Modern Linux distributions, don't 
expect them to work with less than a 1 Ghz processor with at least 1 gig of 
ram. Even the popular arm processors that run Linux, Raspberry Pi 3 and Pi 4, 
run at over 1 ghz. Freedos is an OS that works on any ancient PC including 
dinosaurs like the veritable
8086. Just saying ;-)

 -- Michael C. Robinson
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBox I/O issue follow-up

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

The workaround is easy, you just read from STDIN as a file with DOS FN 0x3F.

The other is supposed to work and this is a little more code. But, who is 
complaining. :)
--
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
Click to learn more.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785351=/4140
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBox I/O issue follow-up

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Sorry, minor correction on results.

> On Mar 22, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Jerome Shidel  wrote:
> 
> Hello Eric (and anyone else who is interested),
> 
> Here is a little proof-of-concept demonstration of the issue regarding I/O 
> redirection in DOSBox.
> 
> ; begin example code
> 
> ; NASM 2.11.08 for DOS
> ; Jerome Shidel, Public Domain.
> 
> use16
> 
> cpu 8086
> 
> org 0x100
> 
> StdPassThru:
> mov ah, 0x0b; DOS Check Standard Input Status
> int 0x21
> cmp al, 0x00; 0x00 = no character available, 0xff = present.
> je  NoInput
> mov ah, 0x08; DOS Get character from STDIN, no echo. AL = 
> Character
> int 0x21
> mov ah, 0x02; DOS Write DL character to STDOUT.
> mov dl, al
> int 0x21
> jmp StdPassThru
> 
> NoInput:
> mov ax, 0x4c00  ; DOS Terminate, no error code
> int 0x21
> 
> ; end example code
> 
> Compile with nasm PASSTHRU.ASM -fbin -o PASSTHRU.COM 
> 
> Run in default DOSBox:
> 
>   type passthru.asm | passthru.com 
>   Result garbage line of text.

Text goes immediately to STDOUT and does not go through PASSTHRU.COM 
.
(Sorry, I was running type passthru.com | passthru.com)

> 
> Run under FreeCOM shell inside DOSBox
> 
>   C:\FDOS\BIN\command.com 
>   type passthru.asm | passthru.com 
>   
>   result: .Text scrolls by, then infinite number of blank characters and 
> occasional 
>   control characters.
> 
> Run on real (or virtual machine of) FreeDOS, MS-DOS, PC-DOS….
> 
>   text of PASSTHRU.ASM is output and program terminates.

--
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
Click to learn more.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785351=/4140___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] DOSBox I/O issue follow-up

[Jerome Shidel]

Hello Eric (and anyone else who is interested),

Here is a little proof-of-concept demonstration of the issue regarding I/O 
redirection in DOSBox.

; begin example code

; NASM 2.11.08 for DOS
; Jerome Shidel, Public Domain.

use16

cpu 8086

org 0x100

StdPassThru:
mov ah, 0x0b; DOS Check Standard Input Status
int 0x21
cmp al, 0x00; 0x00 = no character available, 0xff = present.
je  NoInput
mov ah, 0x08; DOS Get character from STDIN, no echo. AL = Character
int 0x21
mov ah, 0x02; DOS Write DL character to STDOUT.
mov dl, al
int 0x21
jmp StdPassThru

NoInput:
mov ax, 0x4c00  ; DOS Terminate, no error code
int 0x21

; end example code

Compile with nasm PASSTHRU.ASM -fbin -o PASSTHRU.COM

Run in default DOSBox:

type passthru.asm | passthru.com
Result garbage line of text.

Run under FreeCOM shell inside DOSBox

C:\FDOS\BIN\command.com
type passthru.asm | passthru.com

result: .Text scrolls by, then infinite number of blank characters and 
occasional 
control characters.

Run on real (or virtual machine of) FreeDOS, MS-DOS, PC-DOS….

text of PASSTHRU.ASM is output and program terminates.

Thanks, Jerome
--
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
Click to learn more.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785351=/4140___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox

[dmccunney]

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Thomas Mueller mueller6...@twc.com wrote:
 from dmccunney and Ralf Quint:

  You may want to look at vDOS instead.  vDOS is a fork of DOSBox,
  specifically intended to run character mode DOS business apps on
  Windows.  See https://sourceforge.net/projects/vdos/

 +1 vDOS is a much better choice than DOSBox if you do not intend to run
 games. Even parallel and serial port might work, which usually is a
 no-go in DOSBox

 +1 and -1: vDOS is only for Windows, DOSBox can be built and run on Linux and 
 the BSDs.

 I've done that in FreeBSD, NetBSD and Linux; main DOS application of interest 
 was Borland Quattro Pro 5 for DOS.

I have DOSBox up under Linux.  For that matter, there are several
ports to Android.  I got a couple of old DOS character mode games
running on my Android tablet (DOS versions of Unix Larn and VMS
Empire), but haven't been able to get the main object of interest
(Eric Meyer's VDE  WordStar style editor) going because Ctrl-key
combos aren't being passed through.  It's apparently doable if you
diddle keymap.conf correctly, but that's non-trivial to do that under
Android.

I dual boot Win7 and Ubuntu 14.04 here, so the Windows only nature of
vDOS isn't an issue.  And it provides handy methods for dealing with
serial and parallel ports - you can configure the virtual port to be a
program.  In VMS Empire, for instance, the game map that would
normally go to a printer actually comes up in my text editor.

The biggest issue is that stock vDOS *only* supports DOS 8+3 file
names.  (The author apparently feels that if it wasn't in real DOS, he
won't add it to vDOS.)  Fortunately, a third-party mod adds LFN
support, so it's much more usable in a Windows host file system.

 Tom
__
Dennis
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519

--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox

[Thomas Mueller]

from dmccunney and Ralf Quint:

  You may want to look at vDOS instead.  vDOS is a fork of DOSBox,
  specifically intended to run character mode DOS business apps on
  Windows.  See https://sourceforge.net/projects/vdos/
 +1 vDOS is a much better choice than DOSBox if you do not intend to run
 games. Even parallel and serial port might work, which usually is a
 no-go in DOSBox

+1 and -1: vDOS is only for Windows, DOSBox can be built and run on Linux and 
the BSDs.

I've done that in FreeBSD, NetBSD and Linux; main DOS application of interest 
was Borland Quattro Pro 5 for DOS.

Tom


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox

[dmccunney]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rinaldo Guelpa guelpa...@telkomsa.net wrote:
 Hello Friends,
 I wish to use the dosbox in an 2.5 gig computer to run some text based
 programs I am not into games.

Which programs?

 Can someone help me please help. I wish to use the windows screanreader if
 possible.

You may want to look at vDOS instead.  vDOS is a fork of DOSBox,
specifically intended to run character mode DOS business apps on
Windows.  See https://sourceforge.net/projects/vdos/

I have no idea whether it works with Windows screenreader, but it seems likely.

 Rinaldo
 guelpa...@telkomsa.net
__
Dennis
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519

--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox

[Ralf Quint]

On 1/30/2015 7:43 AM, dmccunney wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rinaldo Guelpa guelpa...@telkomsa.net 
 wrote:
 Hello Friends,
 I wish to use the dosbox in an 2.5 gig computer to run some text based
 programs I am not into games.
 Which programs?

 Can someone help me please help. I wish to use the windows screanreader if
 possible.
 You may want to look at vDOS instead.  vDOS is a fork of DOSBox,
 specifically intended to run character mode DOS business apps on
 Windows.  See https://sourceforge.net/projects/vdos/
+1 vDOS is a much better choice than DOSBox if you do not intend to run 
games. Even parallel and serial port might work, which usually is a 
no-go in DOSBox

 I have no idea whether it works with Windows screenreader, but it seems 
 likely.

Same here, still have my vision and the last time I dealt with a 
screenreader for a client, that was still in DOS (and more recently, 
someone using text mode only Linux)

Ralf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] dosbox

[Rinaldo Guelpa]

Hello Friends,
I wish to use the dosbox in an 2.5 gig computer to run some text based programs 
I am not into games.
Can someone help me please help. I wish to use the windows screanreader if 
possible.

Rinaldo
guelpa...@telkomsa.net--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox

[Guillem]

Hello,
DOSbox is known for not working well with screenreaders. I have tried two of 
them (Habla and ASAP) with a real hardware Braille ’n Speak 2000 as a 
synthesizer, and both work only in review mode and make the DOS computer emit a 
constant buzz from the virtual PC speaker. I recommend using a VMWare virtual 
machine or something similar. I have tried running a Windows 3.1 VM and that 
works fine, and i’m planning to try FreeDOS in the near future.



 On 28 Jan 2015, at 11:54, Rinaldo Guelpa guelpa...@telkomsa.net wrote:
 
 Hello,
 Hope some ofblind users can help. I installed dosbox on my xp computer but it 
 does not speak unless Igo into review, please help.
  
 Rinaldo
 guelpa...@telkomsa.net 
 mailto:guelpa...@telkomsa.net--
 Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
 sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
 hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
 leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
 look and join the conversation now. 
 http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/___
  
 http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/___
 Freedos-user mailing list
 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net mailto:Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user 
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] dosbox

[Rinaldo Guelpa]

Hello,
Hope some ofblind users can help. I installed dosbox on my xp computer but it 
does not speak unless Igo into review, please help.

Rinaldo
guelpa...@telkomsa.net--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSbox vs Freedos

[Giorgos]

 I'm a bit confused.
 I use DOSbox but i have timing issues in MIDI.

 Was thinking of using DOS 6.22, but then saw FreeDos.
 What reasons might I chose one over the other?

 Does FreeDos work under XP or needs to be booted separately?

 My music app needs an mup401 or a serial port, so that's an issue.



Hi Dennis! :-)

Since Eric already kindly answered, nothing more than a reminder here:

Since you're already experienced with DOSBox, take a look at its pages ( 
http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1 , 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dosbox ), as well at Wikipedia reference ( 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOSBox ), for help.

If you cant find there, what you want, search at its forum and if you still 
can't find an answer, please write a post at its forum. You can find it 
there: http://vogons.zetafleet.com/index.php?c=7 (ignore the other forums on 
this page).
---

I'm sugesting also (since you're running XP), to take a look on VDMS 
(although its actually the DOSBox predecesor (as you can see at DOSBox 
thanks page), it has a totally different approach (more suitable for older 
systems, for sound emulating).
You can find its pages there:
home page: http://sourceforge.net/projects/vdmsound/
dl page (v2.0.4): 
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=20091
forum page: http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=63541 (you'll 
need a (free) SF.NET account, if you don't already have one).

VDMS stands for (NT)VDM Sound.
What is NTVDM? Please look there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTVDM .
---

If both fail, you'll need a more complete (entire FreeDOS emulation) 
solution (like the (both free) VMWARE server or MS VPC 2007 and other. 
Please look at Eric's post), so please post again.
Anyway, please post again, if you'll need anything.

Good Luck!
Giorgos. :-)



-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSbox vs Freedos

[dennis barton]

At 4/16/2007 06:44 p, you wrote:

Hi Dennis,

Dosbox normally uses a built-in simulation of DOS,
not a real separate DOS. For sound in DOS boxes,
I think there was something called NTVDM. If you
have Linux, you should use Dosemu, which is a
virtual PC specialized for running DOS fast. You
can boot a real DOS in recent Dosbox versions,

very much appreciated.

doesn't quite sound like freedos would work for me, though maybe if i can 
find a laptop with a serial port, it would?


   |_e_/~  Dennis Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ) skylab2000
   ~\/\Brainforest Productions, Los Angeles
  /http://skylab2000.com



-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] DOSbox vs Freedos

[dennis barton]

I'm a bit confused.
I use DOSbox but i have timing issues in MIDI.

Was thinking of using DOS 6.22, but then saw FreeDos.
What reasons might I chose one over the other?

Does FreeDos work under XP or needs to be booted separately?

My music app needs an mup401 or a serial port, so that's an issue.

   |_e_/~  Dennis Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ) skylab2000
   ~\/\Brainforest Productions, Los Angeles
  /http://skylab2000.com



-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSbox vs Freedos

[Eric Auer]

Hi Dennis,

Dosbox normally uses a built-in simulation of DOS,
not a real separate DOS. For sound in DOS boxes,
I think there was something called NTVDM. If you
have Linux, you should use Dosemu, which is a
virtual PC specialized for running DOS fast. You
can boot a real DOS in recent Dosbox versions,
but that does not affect how well it does sound.

 Was thinking of using DOS 6.22, but then saw FreeDos.
 What reasons might I chose one over the other?

FreeDOS is free and can use more modern hardware.
For example MS DOS only can use the first 8 GB of
your harddisk and cannot use FAT32 partitions...
On the other hand, MS DOS has better compatibility
with 32bit modes of the Windows 3 family (note that
WfW 3.11 is relatively useless in 16bit mode). You
can also try DR DOS or spin off variants, which have
reasonable licensing even though not fully free.

Talking about other free software, some people say
that MS QBASIC is free - but you can also try the
FreeBasic.net FREE alternative. FreeDOS itself has
many of the tools you know from MS DOS, but it does
not include QBASIC, DBLSPACE, DOSSHELL, BACKUP/RESTORE,
INTERLNK, maybe others. For some other tools, there are
non-MS-style alternatives included. For example DOSFSCK
is somehow similar to SCANDISK (interactive filesystem
check and repair) but has a different user interface;
While SCANDISK can create undo-disks, DOSFSCK has a
mode to simulate the changes without actually writing.

 Does FreeDos work under XP or needs to be booted separately?

You can use the tools / apps of FreeDOS in XP, but of
course with some limitations. For example XP will not
let DOS tools FORMAT harddisks. And you cannot boot
the kernel of FreeDOS in XP itself, only in an emulator
like Bochs, Qemu, VMware, VirtualPC, Dosbox, etc. So
without our kernel, most of your DOS compatibility in
the DOS window of XP simply depends on how much DOS
compatibility XP gives your DOS window.

 My music app needs an mup401 or a serial port, so that's an issue.

Only hardware can solve this if you boot DOS separately.
If you run DOS in some sort of window, the sound will
depend on the virtual hardware of that window, and will
still be independend of your DOS version. One exception
is that SBLive / SBPCI come with DOS drivers (which only
work when you boot DOS separately afair?) which create a
sort of emulator with virtual SoundBlaster16 hardware while
DOS keeps using your real hardware for everything else.

Eric


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user