It seems that FreeDOS project is in another crisis now. There is nobody who
develops kernel (compatibility with MS-DOS is still not perfect), we still lack
some disk utilities for FAT32 and so on.
There is too small number of active FreeDOS developers. But there is also group
around another DOS
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Ladislav Lacina wrote:
It seems that FreeDOS project is in another crisis now. There is nobody who
develops kernel (compatibility with MS-DOS is still not perfect), we still
lack some disk utilities for FAT32 and so on.
There is too small number of active FreeDOS
Hi!
Some words from me (sent to Jim, but don'T know if he get/read it):
Please remove from freedos.org:
To run old DOS games (like DOOM, etc.)
To run old business software that only supports DOS
The word old is very bad! Why should be somebody interested in
FreeDOS, if it is only for old
Hello Oleg,
btw: Does somebody know, which TUI library OSL2000 Boot Manager
(http://www.osloader.com/) is using? It looks like the one from Norton
Tools (the graphical fonts seems to be the same).
Norton's 'graphical' fonts are standard BIOS fonts (using no
special fonts at all)
Norton
Well I do develop 2036, but nobody said there was a MS DOS compat issue.
I found compatibility issue with MGL demos from Scitech:
ftp://ftp.scitechsoft.com/devel/demos/dos
(there are 2D accelerated demo programs for DOS)
It works without problems under MS-DOS 7.10 but not under FreeDOS.
Japheth
Yes, I got this email from you, but it's been crazy busy where I work,
so I haven't had time for long replies to anyone. And your email
seemed like it would be a long reply.
Anyway, to comment on what you mention below:
On 3/29/07, Florian Xaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Some words from
Hello,
That is a very interesting suggestion. Japheth writes that DOS
should hook int 19 and remove its own handlers if int 19 is
triggered. Int 19 is what a FDAPM HOTBOOT would call, too.
We can definitely tell FreeDOS to do as MS DOS 7 does (remove
interrupt handlers, STACKS, and move
tom ehlert wrote:
and a non-free xxDOS kernel is completely useless to me (and many
others) anyway.
Why? Just because it is not free (which seems to be an unreasonable reason
:) ) or are there other reasons?
-
Take
Ladislav Lacina escreveu:
Why? I still use FreeDOS and I don't plan to switch to DRDOS. (DRDOS is
incompatible with my boot manager)
DR-DOS has a bug about partitions. It will work if DR-DOS is placeded in
a partition both first phisicaly and primary
Alain
I agree that old is ugly.
I use FreeDOS for new and big programs, with databases of a few Giga
bytes on superfast Pentium-4 and AMDs
And I plan to use for many years more... Which other system allows to
intall a full system from bare metal in half an hour by phone, with an
*unskilled*
FreeDOS also quite slow copies files (read speed daemon related
posts on EDR-DOS lists)
Kernel related or related to the COPY or XCOPY commands only?
Which side of the process is slow, reading or writing?
I believe that this is a veeery old (many years) problem and it has been
fixed, but
Japheth escreveu:
Why? Just because it is not free (which seems to be an unreasonable
reason
:) ) or are there other reasons?
We use it in the real world, with real users. Not only for personal
curiosity. Either 1) it is free or 2) we buy it.
The free one is good for all we need.
No
Jim suggested classic, another word (perhaps more precise) that
comes to my mind is legacy, but I'm not saying I like it better, I
just post the idea.
Aitor
2007/3/29, Alain M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree that old is ugly.
I use FreeDOS for new and big programs, with databases of a few Giga
DR-DOS 7.3 really hasn't FAT32 support and isn't free but we don't discuss
this system.
The theme of the day is Enhanced DR-DOS (EDR-DOS) which has origin in
OpenDOS 7.1 and is free. The license isn't GNU, it is something different
and a little bit restriced but it is free.
And it has FAT32
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Jim Hall wrote:
This has always been my vision: Post 1.0, I'd also like to see more
utilities to make it possible to replicate some of the advanced
features we take for granted in modern operating systems, such as
Linux. I want to revive GNUish and replicate a modern
I wrote about usability of DOS quite long article for one czech e-zin. I
don't have the energy to translate it into english so I'll write only few
points:
There are three groups of DOS users:
1) people with old hardware - they don't have another option than using DOS
system. Such PC's are very
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Aitor Santamar?a wrote:
Jim suggested classic, another word (perhaps more precise) that
comes to my mind is legacy, but I'm not saying I like it better, I
just post the idea.
How about classic, legacy and also new ?
I don't see any reason DOS should be limited to being a
I am not specifically against OpenDOS or DR-DOS (use whatever DOS you
like) but I prefer my DOS to be more open and free than that. The
OpenDOS license is look, but do not touch. For example, in the
OpenDOS license agreement, in part 4 (relating to source code) it
says:
Caldera grants you a
Hi Ladislav,
These demos work perfectly under MS-DOS. I can't test it under EDR-DOS
In FreeDOS I get the message Graphics driver wasn't loaded.
Well it worked for me, see the detailled explanations below.
ftp://ftp.scitechsoft.com/devel/demos/dos
I got the mglgears thing, which shows
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Alain M. wrote:
In fact I made my own distro. It's a single floppy, single language and
install exactly where MS-DOS did: in C:\DOS
Some time ago, I tried to talk about that kind of distro, but every one
wanted a big, too-full, graphic, and I don't know what... so I made
Hi Alain:
I am very interested and in fact I have done just this a couple of
times. The FreeDOS installer installs a LOT more than
I need to run my DOS programs. It also doesn't allow control
of the destination partition. I would use a current,
single-floppy FreeDOS distribution.
Maybe we need
21 matches
Mail list logo
