Just to put in my own two cents.
The lastest happening thing is all about open source hardware. Open source
operating systems are so 2000.
Intel has recently released a number of x86 based boards. With a simple
operating system like DOS you could do all sorts of hardware things directly,
wit
Not that I all of a sudden want to jump the bandwagon, but is he planning on
hiring current/past FreeDOS developers at least?
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: "Jim Hall"
Aan: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Verzonden: Woensdag 31 december 2014 17:12:57
Onderwerp: [Freedos-devel]
Mercury,
It looks like your idea in terms of a benefit of a 32 bit FreeDOS is this:
> FreeDOS would suddenly be the most blazing fast DOS ever conceived.
Fair ?
Why do you think that pure 32 bit will be significantly faster than the current
model of 16 bit plus DPMI ? (I suppose there is som
I see where everyone is coming from in saying that FreeDOS should remain
16-bit. For a long time I was a *firm* believer in the superiority of
16-bit code. Heck, I insisted on making my GUI project 16-bit when *every*
single other one out there was done in 32. But, as time wore on and I had
time to
It seems clear a consensus is appearing, but I'll give folks another few
days to chime in. That will give me time to continue on website cleanup
things, anyway. :-)
*What I think I'm hearing: (and I agree)*
*- "FreeDOS 1.2" should be an update/refresh from FreeDOS 1.1. No major
changes. Improved
Thanks for the update - I'm not on Facebook so I can't see the discussion.
What follows is my personal opinion/rant ...
What FreeDOS is:
FreeDOS is an open source re-implementation of DOS (PC-DOS and MS-DOS). I
was careful not to use the word "clone" which would imply that everything
has to be
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Mercury Thirteen
wrote:
> Speaking of multiple kernels, would it be acceptable to require a minimum
> hardware platform for a new version of FreeDOS? Could we exclude the
> pre-386 crowd without backlash? Personally, I think that's acceptable and
> I'm sure Microso
If you take a look one of the links from Jim recently he states:
"But in an alternate reality, what would DOS had looked like if Microsoft
hadn't moved to Windows? I think we get to define what that looks like."
Think for a second about what Microsoft, or any company would have done to
continue
On Thu, 1 Jan 2015, Mercury Thirteen wrote:
> Speaking of multiple kernels, would it be acceptable to require a minimum
> hardware platform for a new version of FreeDOS? Could we exclude the
> pre-386 crowd without backlash? Personally, I think that's acceptable and
> I'm sure Microsoft would've n
Another thing to consider is the choice of extender we use, if we need one
at all. Optimally, the kernel is able to run in protected mode on it's own
without using an extender. Can GCC generate pure 32-bit code which runs in
this way?
If we do end up using an extender (which may be a good way to b
Speaking of multiple kernels, would it be acceptable to require a minimum
hardware platform for a new version of FreeDOS? Could we exclude the
pre-386 crowd without backlash? Personally, I think that's acceptable and
I'm sure Microsoft would've no doubt done the same thing by now had they
not gone
Have two kernels a 16/32bit for legacy cpus and a 64bit kernel that can use
4gb+ addressing of the ram.
--
-Chris Evans
Computer Consultant, Systems Administrator, Programmer, PC technician
Digitalatoll Solutions Group (Tawhaki Software)
Cell. : 916-612-6904 | http://www.tawhakisoft.slyip.net/
O
Hello!
Notes below.
BTW, Whatever happened to Japheth's pages?? Is server down? (see JEMM's
LSM for URL's).
Aitor
2015-01-01 19:31 GMT+01:00 Mercury Thirteen :
> 1 - I like the idea of being able to run apps for multiple other OSes, but
> I think that ability should fall to a program running
Hi, Aitor :)
Just touching on some of your ideas:
1 - I like the idea of being able to run apps for multiple other OSes, but
I think that ability should fall to a program running atop FreeDOS, not to
the FreeDOS kernel itself. That would be a very cool feature, but the
amount of code needed to ad
> Nevermind... figured it out. The IDE set the default language to QB
> compatibility. Duh.
Duh! Didn't know that FreeBASIC would have a DOS IDE, even less
one defaulting to "lang QB".
BTW, FreeBASIC 1.01.0 is out, it still mostly works, and supports DOS.
> I don't see yet how your 'simple shel
Here's my personal opinion, and that's all it is.
But I'm not sure I'd recommend using the plain name "FreeDOS" for
something that needs a 32-bit CPU... I think I'd prolly call it something
slightly separate to make it clear this is a spinoff, kind-of like Digital
Research had their Concurrent
Hello Jim and all,
I like the idea of having two releases of FreeDOS with different goals: a
FreeDOS 1.2 as an update of current FreeDOS 1.1, in order to have something
on a short term as an update of current distribution.
As for FreeDOS 2.0, I share my ideas here. I agree that it should be a big
One thing I'd like to see in the next FreeDOS is a better installer.
Installer should be writable to a USB stick or be bootable and runnable from a
disk image; there is a rather outdated FreeDOS runnable quasi-floppy image on
the System Rescue CD, though this image has no installer.
I would lik
You can also buy a copy at MacMall for $2 [0].
[0]
http://www.macmall.com/p/HP-Operating-Systems/product~dpno~13045035~pdp.igfhgha
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michael Brutman
wrote:
> Somebody should talk to HP and see what FreeDOS 2.0 includes. They are
> already shipping machines that s
I too would love to see a fully modern DOS.
My thoughts for features added in FreeDOS 2.0: The processor is shifted
into (and stays in, at least as much as possible) protected mode, providing
32-bit addressing. Memory therefore would become a flat 4GB RAM address
space, allowing for advanced featu
20 matches
Mail list logo
