Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, And that's such a sad news, if Japheth's software cannot be accessed anymore. Oh well... Aitor 2015-04-04 22:08 GMT+02:00 Rugxulo : > Welp, it was fun while it lasted > > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Aitor Santamaría > wrote: > > Thank you Rugxulo! > > If you thank me for good t

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Welp, it was fun while it lasted On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Aitor Santamaría wrote: > Thank you Rugxulo! If you thank me for good things working, which I didn't do, then you must also blame me when things go wrong. As such, blame away. > I always was somewhat concerned about such lic

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, I gather that this debate is a bit over debated but... > 1 - Two separate kernels (one 16-bit and one 32-bit) with a mechanism which > auto-detects what CPU it's running on and launches the appropriate kernel Bernd and I once considered the possibility to make this part of the boot process,

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

But emails keep people interested long enough for code to be written. - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "Tom Ehlert" Aan: "Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers." Verzonden: Dinsdag 6 januari 2015 18:40:43 Onderwerp: Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Sounds like you've been busy, Jeremy! Please keep it up -- believe me, I can relate to the lack of time to implement and test all of the ideas. -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sp

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Bertho Grandpied wrote: > Regarding the next FreeDOS 1.2 and possible later 1.x releases, > I'd like to see the kernel upgraded to supporting large sector > sizes, rather than hear fantasies about '32 bit FreeDOS' ! > > As far as the 16-bitty-FreeDOS kernel is conc

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Couldn't agree more, Czerno. I would also add that the various disk utilities (FORMAT, FDISK, defragging, caching, etc.) should also work correctly with sector sizes other than 512 bytes (even though most of the MS-DOS utilities don't -- SMARTDRV being the major exception that I'm aware of). I

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Regarding the next FreeDOS 1.2 and possible later 1.x releases, I'd like to see the kernel upgraded to supporting large sector sizes, rather than hear fantasies about '32 bit FreeDOS' ! As far as the 16-bitty-FreeDOS kernel is concerned, it's been clearly stated that the goal is to be (at least)

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

You have my email address. Say them in private if you like. In the past few days you have drawn false analogies to other operating systems, demonstrated a lack of understanding of the origins of FreeDOS or what it is, and made wild statements about what a non-existent piece of software could do.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: > You are really providing links to me about how protected mode works? I am > somewhat amused. > > Your new OS has to be able to arbitrate between conflicts caused by the > multiple running VDMs. If two programs running at the same time cho

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

You are really providing links to me about how protected mode works? I am somewhat amused. Your new OS has to be able to arbitrate between conflicts caused by the multiple running VDMs. If two programs running at the same time choose to access the same I/O ports how are you going to handle that?

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Thank you very much, Vidók! On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Vidók Tibor wrote: > Hi, > > I was participating in a project to port a 32bit proprietary OS to 64bit > 6 or 7 years ago. I was using a printed wersion of AMD64 Architecture > Programmer’s Manual Volume 2: System Programming > < > http

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, I was participating in a project to port a 32bit proprietary OS to 64bit 6 or 7 years ago. I was using a printed wersion of AMD64 Architecture Programmer’s Manual Volume 2: System Programming Documentation. Act

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, I have to admit the difference between what I'd like to see and what I think it is likely to happen. I had found Japheth's work promising towards a good VMM, but apparently doesn't seem to be under active development, I find the task would be so huge (need to rewrite 32-bit versions of BIOS/DO

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

> I have to say, I love the idea of a 64-bit DPMI. That's an area in > which we would have total creative freedom because (unless I've > missed the news) nobodyhas made such a thing yet. The only problem > is that I haven't been able to find a whole lot of info on 64-bit long mode. http://www.int

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

>> It is a little silly to keep talking about a 32 bit kernel on the >> roadmap when such an option does not exist. > I see your point, however if that attitude was taken during the > initial formative discussions of the existing FreeDOS kernel... it > never would have been made. ;-) At that point

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Like others have said, anything (like the fictitious "64-bit DPMI") which has 1) little or no working code as of today (precedent/compatibility/feature parity with MS 3.3/6.22), 2) has a high a degree of complexity (achieveable), 3) requires a large dedication of man-hours to complete, 3) has littl

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Sounds good to me. :) I have to say, I love the idea of a 64-bit DPMI. That's an area in which we would have total creative freedom because (unless I've missed the news) *nobody* has made such a thing yet. The only problem is that I haven't been able to find a whole lot of info on 64-bit long mode

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: Options 1, 2, and 3 do not exist and are not likely to exist for a few > years even after somebody actively starts working on them. > Correct. I never said this was something which could be thrown together overnight. I know the existing Free

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

To maybe summarize and make the task list a bit more concrete. Goals for FD 1.2 * Update kernel (release 2042?) * Update apps * Update translations * Update installer * Update/Standardize on mTCP and FDNPKG * Live-CD with installer * Floppy-based installer Possible Goals for FD 2.0 * USB-drive in

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

+1 (I hate +1 mails on a mailing list that is read by 100's of readers, but this mail deserves it) > Bringing things back to reality: > Options 1, 2, and 3 do not exist and are not likely to exist for a > few years even after somebody actively starts working on them. > Options 1 and 2 can

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/5/2015 6:14 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: > Bringing things back to reality: > > Options 1, 2, and 3 do not exist and are not likely to exist for a few > years even after somebody actively starts working on them. > > Options 1 and 2 can not promise "100% compatibility with both DOS > applicatio

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Bringing things back to reality: Options 1, 2, and 3 do not exist and are not likely to exist for a few years even after somebody actively starts working on them. Options 1 and 2 can not promise "100% compatibility with both DOS applications and the full range of PC hardware" when they are not ev

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On january 4 Jim Hall said: > "FreeDOS 1.2" should be an update/refresh from >FreeDOS 1.1. > No major changes. Improved installer is a good idea. I must say I never used the installer, so I don't know whether it can be improved. > "FreeDOS 2.0" should be 16-bit. Make FreeDOS feel more > m

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Expounding a bit on all the options and variations which have been presented in this 32- vs. 16-bit debate: 1 - Two separate kernels (one 16-bit and one 32-bit) with a mechanism which auto-detects what CPU it's running on and launches the appropriate kernel automatically. Maintains 100% hardware a

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

+1 On Jan 4, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > I'm traveling, and likely won't be able to check email again or update the > roadmap on the wiki until Wednesday. With a few disagreements, it looks > like the consensus remains this: > > > *- "FreeDOS 1.2" should be an update/refresh from FreeDO

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Nobody says you gotta run a 32-bit version of dos on a system that isn't 32-bit. What's wrong with just leaving the version that's already running there, and just use the 32-bit version on 386+ machines. Nobody said the current version would disappear just because a 32-bit version shows up. St

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi Or let te user to decide to load the 32bit/i386 driver or not. The marketting question is: why is it more than a new, yet another extender. If decided not to load, it is 100 backward compatible both from hw and sw point of view. Br, Tibi --

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

+1 +1 +1 :) However... I just wanted to point out that - if my grasp on technology is adequate - going 32-bit need not break either hardware or software compatibility, since the kernel could detect which CPU on which it is running and either shift into protected mode or stay in real mode accordin

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, Florian! I totally agree, but the only problem is that Japheth seems to be gone. :( On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:04 AM, Florian Xaver wrote: > Hi all! > > I want to add my thoughts to Tom’s e-mail: I think that the first step to > a 32-bit version of FreeDOS has already be done! > > It’s calle

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi all! I want to add my thoughts to Tom’s e-mail: I think that the first step to a 32-bit version of FreeDOS has already be done! It’s called JEMM and HX DOS Extender (http://web.archive.org/web/20140905021040/http://www.japheth.de/) You can even run some Windows programs.  Using mo

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

+1 backwards compatibility model is a must more so than 32bit support, measuring stick should be compared to a average stock 6.22/win98 dos system. -- -Chris Evans Computer Consultant, Systems Administrator, Programmer, PC technician Digitalatoll Solutions Group (Tawhaki Software) Cell. : 916

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

I'm traveling, and likely won't be able to check email again or update the roadmap on the wiki until Wednesday. With a few disagreements, it looks like the consensus remains this: *- "FreeDOS 1.2" should be an update/refresh from FreeDOS 1.1. No major changes. Improved installer is a good idea.*

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: > > If you want to run multiple virtual DOS machines at the same time use an > existing solution that already has the Virtual 8086 mode, or even an entire > virtual machine. I really can't see the advantage that you would be > getting by rei

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

I getting better at it. Recently, made a picture viewer in visual studio, and have to play with it some more. I settled on 30 an hour for coding an app. -- -Chris Evans Computer Consultant, Systems Administrator, Programmer, PC technician Digitalatoll Solutions Group (Tawhaki Software) Cell. : 9

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

> I don't think I missed anything.  In his most recent post Mercury > Thirteen spoke of multiple 16 bit programs running at the same time. > That it's not EMM386 ... that is a supervisor layer for multiple virtual DOS > machines. multitasking is certainly far from trivial, but will not fill a fl

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

I don't think I missed anything. In his most recent post Mercury Thirteen spoke of multiple 16 bit programs running at the same time. That it's not EMM386 ... that is a supervisor layer for multiple virtual DOS machines.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

> The part about a kernel sensing the hardware it is on and being > able to decide to boot in classic 16 bit mode or go full 32 bit and > behave as a supervisor is technically feasible.  But I don't think > it's going to fit on a floppy disk.  you are missing the fact that device= EMM386.EXE

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

How is using the Virtual 8086 mode any different than what OS/2 2.x provided? It too ran 16 bit DOS and DOS applications in Virtual 8086 mode, making OS/2 serve as the supervisor layer. The advantage would be that you would be able to run several DOS programs on a single machine at once. Each DO

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

So, to summarize what I'm hearing, FreeDOS 2.0 could be made to detect the CPU on which its running and branch accordingly. If it was a 386 or better, we enter protected mode and use a V86 monitor to spawn multiple 16-bit app spaces using the chip's built-in virtualization hardware. If it's a 286 o

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hello, 2015-01-03 19:14 GMT+01:00 Travis Siegel : > > On Jan 1, 2015, at 3:46 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > > > I too would love to see a fully modern DOS. > > As would I, and I believe everything mentioned in the email would be > perfect for a 32-bit dos. I believe it can be done, and the whole

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Old hardware has 16 bit registers. Requiring opcodes that only 386+ systems have an using the extra registers, or assuming that registers contain 32 bits means that no 8088 class or 80286 class system will run. That is a big conflict. On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Travis Siegel wrote: > >

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015, Travis Siegel wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: >> People are free to fork off and make a new project based on FreeDOS. No >> problem there. But once you break compatibility with existing >> applications, you lose a lot of your potential user base.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > > We in this discussion aren't the first people to question how to > successfully meld the worlds of 32- and 16-bit code while having speed, > flexibility and compatibility. This became an issue way back in the days of > the 386, and so so

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Jan 2, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: > People are free to fork off and make a new project based on FreeDOS. No > problem there. But once you break compatibility with existing > applications, you lose a lot of your potential user base. And as soon as > you go to 32 bits, you lose a

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Travis Siegel wrote: > > I think primarily, your summary hit the nail on the head, with the caveat > that if a 32-bit dos could be built that still maintained the backward > compatibility for those programs that needed it, it would *not* be a bad > thing, in fact,

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Jan 1, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Dave Pratt wrote: > Are there other benefits you see to the 32 bit DOS? A 32-bit dos would break the 640K barrier permanently for one thing. For another, multitasking would not only be possible, it would probably become the norm. I know I'm not the only one who woul

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Yes, that's exactly what I meant in my emails. Microsoft would've eventually (in my educated guesses, at least) made MS-DOS enter protected mode as early as possible (as any modern OS does) then spawned multiple apps in their own memory areas using VM86. This would basically make the kernel the V86

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Jan 1, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > 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. :-) I think primarily, your summary hit the nail on the head, with the caveat that i

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Jan 1, 2015, at 3:46 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > I too would love to see a fully modern DOS. As would I, and I believe everything mentioned in the email would be perfect for a 32-bit dos. I believe it can be done, and the whole give each program it's own virtual 86 machine is one I've wo

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015, Thomas Mueller wrote: > I thought of that, a 32-bit version of FreeDOS could take ideas/features > from OS/2 and eComStation. > > I saw OS/2 as like a much-enhanced 32-bit DOS. Yeah. And if I were to try to create a 32-bit DOS, it might be something like OS/2 without Presen

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

from Sparky4: > I think the FreeDOS 2.0 version should be a updated 16 bit kernel that can > run in real mode by default > and the freedos-32 stuff should merge with OSFree I thought of that, a 32-bit version of FreeDOS could take ideas/features from OS/2 and eComStation. I saw OS/2 as like a

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/2/2015 7:36 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: I doubt that you will even see one (1) 32-bit version of FreeDOS. Whoever is seriously claiming on working on that just doesn't know what they will get themselves into. MS/PC/DR-/FreeDOS is at its very core 16bit/x86. You get yourself

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Fri, 2 Jan 2015, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > I've detailed the advantages in several other emails, and so far as what > applications would run on it... both traditional DOS apps and new 32-bit > applications as well. Might be trickier if you're talking about 16-bit apps that hit the metal. Even

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

> > I doubt that you will even see one (1) 32-bit version of FreeDOS. Whoever > is seriously claiming on working on that just doesn't know what they will > get themselves into. MS/PC/DR-/FreeDOS is at its very core 16bit/x86. You > get yourself in one development hell if you try to change that. And

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Vote noted! :) On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: > On 1/1/2015 2:43 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 backlas

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Aitor Santamaría wrote: > Thank you Rugxulo! > +1 :) -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

i have HX extender mirrored http://4ch.mooo.com/fdos/pack/ -- View this message in context: http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/FreeDOS-1-2-and-2-0-roadmap-discussion-tp21529p21602.html Sent from the FreeDOS - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/2/2015 3:29 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: > The great news is that anybody can go off and do whatever they want to > as this is all a hobbyist effort anyway. But lets stop calling it a > discussion about the FreeDOS roadmap. Once it goes to 32 bits its not > FreeDOS anymore. Copy the code an

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/2/2015 2:28 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > It wouldn't be only the speed increase, but the fact that we'd be > modernizing FreeDOS as a whole. > > I think of it this way: What would Microsoft have done had they not > gone exclusively to Windows? I am doubtless they would've migrated > MS-DOS

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/2/2015 12:30 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: > Well, I wasn't advocating that we leave behind our "16-bit roots" > altogether, because it is possible to still run 16- as well as 32-bit > code on a 32-bit OS.Then again, if we go to a 32-bit kernel and still > run 16-bit code... exactly what have

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

That's why I suggest two kernels, 16 and 32 and make it switchable like through a boot up keywords like F7. -- -Chris Evans Computer Consultant, Systems Administrator, Programmer, PC technician Digitalatoll Solutions Group (Tawhaki Software) Cell. : 916-612-6904 | http://www.tawhakisoft.slyip.ne

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/1/2015 7:15 PM, Mercury Thirteen wrote: We can add modern OS features (protected memory and multitasking are still quite doable) without jumping to 32-bit code. After all, there obviously already is a 32-bit FreeDOS project, and it wouldn't really make sense to have /two/ 32-bit versions

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

On 1/1/2015 2:43 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? > Absolutely NOT! Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, That's my guess: 2015-01-02 0:05 GMT+01:00 : > 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." > My guess is that if Wi

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

FreeDOS is, by definition, a re-implementation of DOS. If you read the specification on the Wiki the kernel targets MS-DOS 3.3 and the applications target MS-DOS 6.22. There is no need to modernize FreeDOS. Anything 32 bit would be radically different and thus is a different project. IBM and Mic

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Thank you Rugxulo! I always was somewhat concerned about such licensing issues, but the software looks pretty valuable! :) Aitor 2015-01-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Rugxulo : > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Aitor Santamaría > wrote: > > > > PS: Btw, I continue to be a bit worried about [ ww

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

It wouldn't be only the speed increase, but the fact that we'd be modernizing FreeDOS as a whole. I think of it this way: What would Microsoft have done had they not gone exclusively to Windows? I am doubtless they would've migrated MS-DOS to a 32-bit platform years ago. If we were to do such a mo

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Aitor Santamaría wrote: > > PS: Btw, I continue to be a bit worried about [ www.japheth.de ], anyone? http://web.archive.org/web/20140904175113/http://www.japheth.de/HX.html Also, dare I mention, the licensing is a bit ambiguous. Great if all you care about

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

I agree -- View this message in context: http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/FreeDOS-1-2-and-2-0-roadmap-discussion-tp21529p21585.html Sent from the FreeDOS - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Dive into the Wor

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

no no! i mean it dose not require a 386 just to run the kernel and the command prompt alone bare minimal setup! -- View this message in context: http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/FreeDOS-1-2-and-2-0-roadmap-discussion-tp21529p21584.html Sent from the FreeDOS - Dev mailing list archive at Nabb

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Well, I wasn't advocating that we leave behind our "16-bit roots" altogether, because it is possible to still run 16- as well as 32-bit code on a 32-bit OS.Then again, if we go to a 32-bit kernel and still run 16-bit code... exactly what have we gained? Like I said before, I can see both sides of t

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

What's the difference between FreeDOS 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3? Bug fixes, updates to the user space packages, improvements to the installer, and possibly improvements to the packaging. I reject the argument that FreeDOS needs to evolve and leave its 16 bit roots behind, similar to the way MacOS did. Ma

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, I don't know how "that can run in real mode by default" differs from current situation. Maybe you mean that FreeDOS drops EMM386.EXE. Regards, Aitor 2015-01-02 20:47 GMT+01:00 sparky4 : > I think the FreeDOS 2.0 version should be a updated 16 bit kernel that can > run in real mode by defa

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

i agree with everything -- View this message in context: http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/FreeDOS-1-2-and-2-0-roadmap-discussion-tp21529p21580.html Sent from the FreeDOS - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- D

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

I think the FreeDOS 2.0 version should be a updated 16 bit kernel that can run in real mode by default and the freedos-32 stuff should merge with OSFree -- View this message in context: http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/FreeDOS-1-2-and-2-0-roadmap-discussion-tp21529p21578.html Sent from the F

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, I myself agree with the first and third point. About the second, I'm not advocating for a different 32-bit OS (such as FreeDOS-32). I also agree that one first target would be the UEFI stuff. But at long term, I am of the opinion that VxDs are DOS drivers, as much as the classic "DEVICE=" dri

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Hi, Not only about kernels, but about the 16-bit DOS compiling options too. I think we talked about this in the past, and I think it'd make sense that FreeDOS 2.0 would be 386+. Aitor 2015-01-01 23:43 GMT+01:00 Mercury Thirteen : > Speaking of multiple kernels, would it be acceptable to require

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

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

Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Looks like I forgot to make the "read NovOS letter" into a link, so here is the URL: http://www.ctyme.com/dri2.htm On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > Mike pointed out that the FreeDOS Road Map > (wiki) is out of > date a

[Freedos-devel] FreeDOS 1.2 and 2.0 roadmap discussion

Mike pointed out that the FreeDOS Road Map (wiki) is out of date and short on details and suggested a broad discussion on the road map, get consensus and have it updated. I figured we should start a separate discussion thread about that. F