>>HIMEM /INT15H=... should not be extremely hard to do, so I vote for it.
>>
ASM> That's another argument that I like: low cost to implement it. A third
ASM> opinion (or more) for the untie?
a nice argument indeed: Eric thinks that it won't cost *me* a lot of
time. LOL.
tom
--
>>> some others like Win 3.11 compat
>>> should probably be fixed before we call it FreeDOS 1.0 ...
>>
>> There is probably a patent to prevent us of it anyway :(
ASM> I don't think so... Did it prevent DR-DOS from doing that anyway? I
ASM> think it's just a question of misscompatibilities here o
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:20:22 -0600, you wrote:
Hi Uso,
>3.31 actually (which first did >32 MB partitions) :P
I remember crystal clear, this version was release by Compaq.
I help my schoolmate to partition his 200MB Connor with this,
otherwise drive letter will reach "I", horrible.
Rgds,
John
Aitor Santamaría Merino wrote:
Hi,
Alain has introduced in this mail something interesting that was
introduced in other posts too: the spec mentions a kernel compatible to
MS-DOS 3.30,
3.31 actually (which first did >32 MB partitions) :P
Alain escribió:
some others like Win 3.11 compat
should
Eric Auer escribió:
Hi, some comments on your comments...
HIMEM /INT15H=... should not be extremely hard to do, so I vote for it.
That's another argument that I like: low cost to implement it. A third
opinion (or more) for the untie?
Eric, you say DOS5 we have it more or less, I just watch the
Hi,
Alain has introduced in this mail something interesting that was
introduced in other posts too: the spec mentions a kernel compatible to
MS-DOS 3.30, but actually I think that our current FreeDOS kernel is
closer to 5.0 and sucessors than 3.30. Also 3.30 and 5.0 have many
differences in da
about fat32 testing: I believe a working DOSFSCK 2.10 just what is
needed (not what is whished for).
A ScanDisc-alike program would be nice, but IMHO what is really _needed_
is just some way of testing and fixing a fat32 disk, nothing fancy fust
functional. This would give time to ScanDisk be i
Hi!
25-Мар-2004 21:05 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
EA> HIMEM /HMAMIN=m is indeed not very useful. Being able to allocate PARTS
EA> of the HMA would be nice but was not introduced before MS DOS 7 or so,
EA> and before that time, HMAMIN protected the system from giv
Hi, some comments on your comments...
HIMEM /INT15H=... should not be extremely hard to do, so I vote for it.
HIMEM /HMAMIN=m is indeed not very useful. Being able to allocate PARTS
of the HMA would be nice but was not introduced before MS DOS 7 or so,
and before that time, HMAMIN protected t
