Hi,
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Travis Siegel wrote:
>
> Actually, opendos version 7.01 (or caldera dos depending on when you
> purchased it)
> did have multitasking, and it worked fairly well. The problem was, setting
> it up and
> getting it to run properly was a bear. I did finally ac
Hello,
2015-01-03 19:00 GMT+01:00 Mercury Thirteen :
> As far as I have seen, DOS allocates one Program Segment Prefix and runs
> an app in that segment. When you exit the program, it clears that app out
> then loads the next one you run in the same segment. I don't think it would
> be that hard
As far as I have seen, DOS allocates one Program Segment Prefix and runs an
app in that segment. When you exit the program, it clears that app out then
loads the next one you run in the same segment. I don't think it would be
that hard to make it allocate an additional PSP every time a new app is
l
Actually, opendos version 7.01 (or caldera dos depending on when you purchased
it) did have multitasking, and it worked fairly well. The problem was, setting
it up and getting it to run properly was a bear. I did finally accomplish it,
but it was a tough nut to crack, and I didn't use it long,
Actually, if it could be rolled in, I believe the vmix32 project would be an
excellent 32-bit dos multitasking solution. I ran vmix when it was version
2.67, and it not only worked, (in my case) it worked too well. I had multiple
programs running, and because of the method vmix used to virtual
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, Jim Hall wrote :
> let's look at the history of DOS
> MSDOS 4 had multitasking, but that was taken out
before MSDOS 4.01.
Lest I forgot, a happy new year to all !
And, Jim, a correction, as you seem to be confused here.
Mutitasking DOS was "European MSDOS 4", a differ
The list of features on the kickstarter seem to be copied/pasted from the
FreeDOS-32 page:
http://freedos-32.sourceforge.net
Jim
On Dec 31, 2014 1:03 PM, wrote:
>
> I'm curious what the specific uses are being proposed for FreeDOS-32 ?
>
> The kickstarter site mentions supporting DJGPP compiled
I didn't see any mention of that, but it would be a great place to start...
--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is yo
Verzonden: Vrijdag 2 januari 2015 08:53:11
Onderwerp: Re: [Freedos-devel] Kickstarter project for FreeDOS 2.0
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
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]
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
Somebody should talk to HP and see what FreeDOS 2.0 includes. They are
already shipping machines that support it:
http://h20564.www2.hp.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr_na-c04027658&DocLang=en&docLocale=en_US&jumpid=reg_r1002_usen_c-001_title_r0001
On a more serious note, somebody should tr
On 12/31/2014 4:22 PM, Jim Hall wrote:
>
> It's not my kickstarter project, but I'll watch and see what happens.
> I agree that FreeDOS-32 is a tough prospect. As you can guess from my
> other post, I'm very concerned that they can maintain any application
> compatibility while adding modern har
>
>
> FreeDOS-32 was born dead IMHO. You simply can't not do what they had in
> mind and still be "100% application compatible". That's why they had to
> start over and over again, without really getting anywhere.
> And you won't find anyone writing any new software for it that fills all
> the need
On 12/31/2014 1:48 PM, Jim Hall wrote:
FreeDOS-32 has been around a long time (since 2000) but they haven't
released anything to date. I was in occasional email contact with one
or two of the developers at the time, and I know they suffered poor
project stability. They completely started over
On 12/31/2014 10:40 AM, Michael Brutman wrote:
I am a little skeptical about the prospects for success on this project.
The FreeDOS roadmap (
http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Road_Map ) is out of
date and short on details. I would like to see a broad discussion on
the roadmap, g
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Mercury Thirteen
wrote:
> I have nothing against the project at all (it would be awesome to have a
> DOS with 32 bit speed) but I have to say I agree with Mike - the two
> projects should keep separate names. FreeDOS should remain an enhanced
> clone of MS-DOS sin
I have nothing against the project at all (it would be awesome to have a
DOS with 32 bit speed) but I have to say I agree with Mike - the two
projects should keep separate names. FreeDOS should remain an enhanced
clone of MS-DOS since anything which takes it into the 32 bit realm would,
in my mind,
I am a little skeptical about the prospects for success on this project.
The FreeDOS roadmap ( http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/FreeDOS_Road_Map
) is out of date and short on details. I would like to see a broad
discussion on the roadmap, get consensus and have it updated.
Anything that use
20 matches
Mail list logo
