> On May 16, 2025, at 12:55 AM, Antony Gordon via Freedos-devel
> wrote:
>
> Jerome,
>
> I sent you a private message a few days ago? Did you get it?
Yes. But, I have been very busy and have not had time to look at that as of yet.
> ___
> Freedos
Too bad there's no fail over...then no one would notice.
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 8:07 PM Jim Hall via Freedos-devel <
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> I don't know that anyone will notice, but FYI that the internet
> company that hosts the www.freedos.org website has announced they w
Jerome,
I sent you a private message a few days ago? Did you get it?
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Thanks to everyone who responded to my question.
I will adapt the INT2F.1680 (+ HLT) method, as some of you suggested.
However, as this was already built into EDIT, one comment in the source caught
my attention:
> #if 0 /* int 2f is often quite crowded */
>r.x.
Hi Bernd,
we just had this in the BTTR Software forum, "DOS Ain't Dead". The thread
started [1] with the question of how to avoid using 100% CPU time of a CPU core
for a DOS VM.
In one of my replies [2] I answered exactly where code should idle. That is,
whenever it does a polling loop. For ex
