Hi.
My main interest is using Freedos+HX as a substitute for Windows 95.
Recent unrelated (PDOS/386) advances mean that this goal is
now possibly within reach - I'm still looking and I will be reporting
any issues.
First is cosmetic.
If I do "dir /?" under Freedos 1.3 I get this:
DIR [drive:][
>> HX DOS-Extender is a free DOS extender with built-in Win32 PE file
format support
> I see. Remarkable!
> Doesn't seem to make it much of a Win9x replacement to me, but hey, to
> each their own. :-)
I do all my serious work (developing software) on the command line.
It doesn't make any differ
Hi.
I am getting this:
C:\>fdtest
The shell is about to be terminated, though, this is
forbidden (usually by enabling the "/P" option).
You must reboot the system or, if this shell runs in
a multitasking environment, terminate this process/task manually.
when I run this:
C:\devel\pdos\pdpclib
Hi guys.
Thanks for the response, replying to the various points together.
> 0standard input
> basically you are telling the STdiN device 0, that is no longer standard
input.
Yes, which is why in my original message I said:
>> Using 1 or 81h gives the same result.
ie I tried two ways to
Hi Bret.
Thanks so much for that information, which underpins the entire
issue. I had indeed managed to stuff up the test.
After fixing that:
https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/ede042ced72fd2482a4ea1c8f79a80dfe2b69561/
by changing:
mov word ptr [info], dx
to:
mov word ptr [bx], dx
Th
Hi.
When I started programming in Turbo C 2.0 on my
Commodore PC 5 (IBM PC XT compatible) with
20 MB hard disk and monochrome text monitor
circa 1987, I didn't write any MSDOS or 8086-specific
code at all. Everything I did was C90.
My code worked on the mainframe (MVS) too.
I resisted making pla
Hi Jim.
Direct link here:
https://www.pdos.org/uc8086.zip
Since my previous email I have included a couple more
binaries for unrelated reasons, so the archive has (just
now) been refreshed (again).
BFN. Paul.
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-dev
> And this is the first application I've heard of
> that insists on ESC sequences instead of using
> the BIOS routines,
I think it's not that straightforward. I would expect (ie could
be wrong) that most fullscreen text applications - written
by people who don't even use DOS - e.g. Amiga, VAX,
Uni
> The problem (and the competitive edge for software) is that DOS calls,
> even BIOS and also ANSI sequences are excruciating slow, compared to
> direct hardware access. That was a decisive factor as to why IBM
> prevailed, even though contemporary machines like the Sirius 1 or TI
> Professional ha
> However, most people don't care about standards, and even the ones who
> do don't really think anything "useful" can be written in them. Which
> is untrue and a shame.
It is only recently - perhaps only a few hours ago - that I started
to have confidence that it was untrue.
Ok, so an entire too
Hi Rugxulo.
>> Ok, so an entire toolchain plus OS plus fullscreen editor can be
>> written - what definition of "useful" is being used? That's enough
>> to quite literally rebuild the world.
> I don't know, some people are never satisfied.
> C is a bit of a red herring. (Isn't everything?) ISO C
> Sure, thanks. Possibly the Book 8088 BIOS is deficient
> and Freedos is relying on that (while MSDOS 6.22 is not).
I thought of another possibility.
I think the Freedos VHD I use was created under Windows 7.
And probably partitioned there too. I can't remember if I
repartitioned it under Freedo
Sorry for the delay. I've been sick recently (possibly Covid)
plus had other stuff to deal with.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 20:36, C. Masloch wrote:
>
> On at 2023-08-02 15:27 +0800, Paul Edwards via Freedos-devel wrote:
>
> I assume that your file system is FAT32? Otherwise I d
13 matches
Mail list logo
