Re: [Freedos-devel] dos64

2006-11-27 Thread TG
Well, with this exponential growth, I suspect that we should be seeing DOS192 (192 bit DOS) somewhere in the near (2 to 4 yr) future. -T - Original Message - From: Blair Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Владимир [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Tuesday,

Re: [Freedos-devel] Update proposal

2006-11-03 Thread TG
I totally agree. At this stage, anything done to FreeDOS doesn't warrant a 2.0 moniker. I'm seeing a 1.01 in the immediate future due to the kernel, and utility updates (CHKDSK, DEBUG, etc and so forth). -T - Original Message - From: Aitor Santamaría [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:

Re: [Freedos-devel] Update proposal

2006-11-03 Thread TG
At that rate, FreeDOS will be at 9.0 in a matter of months over things that really amount to a .01 moniker...but hey I aint the boss, just a player in the game... For example, Imre just fixed a bug in CHKDSK and the kernel syncs (including findfirst/findnext) may get a 1.1, but any fixes after

[Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.0 is compatible to MS-DOS version???

2006-10-30 Thread TG
I have a (silly) question. A brand new installation of FreeDOS 1.0 is supposed to emulate what version of MS-DOS? The reason I ask this is because while comparing FreeDOS 1.0 and MS-DOS 6.22 side by side, I started looking for features and other system utilities. I found that COMPINFO is the

Re: [Freedos-devel] Update proposal

2006-10-29 Thread TG
Ok, I was thinking more along the lines of a file that combines all the fixes, hence the version scheme... CHKDSK fix, kernel update, couple of other changes...all wrapped up into one file...download and install...now FreeDOS 1.0 is patched up to 1.0.1 (or 1.1) The newest CD automatically

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.0 bugreport place?

2006-10-11 Thread TG
You know, a small piece of code could be written to simply read the partition table and check for FAT/FAT32 partitions instead of the whole %comspec% /f thing. Actually, I thought the setup program was going to be re-written anyway. -T - Original Message - From: Eric Auer [EMAIL

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Boot CD (Round 2)

2006-10-09 Thread TG
be a good option. -T One of the beauties of free software as that we can borrow - Original Message - From: Bernd Blaauw [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Boot CD (Round 2) TG schreef: Well, I

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Boot CD (Round 2)

2006-10-09 Thread TG
on old machines, how can it be a good choice after all so many talks about old machines here? Alain TG escreveu: Well, I thought about the issue of not being able to choose to boot from the hard drive with the CD installed. When I googled it, JO.SYS and a free version of JO.SYS written

[Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Boot CD (Round 2)

2006-10-07 Thread TG
Well, I played a little more with the boot CD, I have a rescue image that it boots from, using SHSU ramdisk to load a FDBOOT.IMG and set that image so there is TEMP space... I haven't started connecting the boot CD to the FreeDOS setup program, but so far it looks good... If anyone wants a

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Boot CD Question

2006-10-04 Thread TG
I feel like an idiot...I will crawl under a rock and die now. -T - Original Message - From: Eric Auer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS Boot CD Question Well, the secret to the read

Re: [Freedos-devel] djgpp

2006-10-02 Thread TG
I remember hearing something about that...the far pointer thing...But what version of GCC was that? I'm sure if DJGPP is using the latest compiler (4.x) that has to be fixed by now. -T - Original Message - From: Alain M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Sent:

Re: [Freedos-devel] djgpp

2006-09-30 Thread TG
Hmmm...lets see... FreeDOS compiled with DJGPP... The OS can boot the same way, the go32 extender can be added to all the executables to run in protected mode on 386 and higher machines (386 is the baseline for LFN anyways, right), so basically the installer would have to do a processor check