On 7/18/2014 4:10 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote:
Actually, that's exactly what jd.exe does from the wattcp/pprd package,
too. Send job to printer or spooler using direct protocol.
http://archives.scovetta.com/pub/simtelnet/msdos/lan/pprd200.zip
Source code is included.
The nice thing is that
On 7/17/2014 1:49 PM, Jim Michaels wrote:
for the network stufff, I was thinking of opening a socket and just dumping
the printer data from stdin or from a file depnding on commandline options.
it'
s the easiest way to go. sockets is probably about 10-20 lines of code I
think.
google
Caution - long rant. Please be mindful about how you quote and comment
so it doesn't turn into a jumbled mess
The road map from the Wiki dated August 2010 seems to be wildly
optimistic. It is talking about tightly integrated protected mode
support, protected mode networking and USB,
Re: FreeDOS vs. DOS-like operating systems
There are plenty of DOS-like hobby projects out there. But without
applications, they are pretty limited. I think a lot of the value in
DOS and FreeDOS is the ability to run existing applications. So we need
to decide on what we are trying to do;
I have not done the survey in a while but I have found a lot of the
older networking applications to be sorely lacking. The WATTCP based
FTP clients that I looked at did not support passive mode connections
and had horrible user interfaces. NCSA Telnet does not run on 8088
class machines;
My understanding of the printer problem leads to believe this is not
terribly easy.
If every program out there uses the BIOS interrupts to send data to the
printer, then it is pretty easy - you install a handler to intercept the
BIOS calls and buffer the outgoing data elsewhere. The outgoing
I don't pretend to make judgements on what is sane or not sane. I'm
merely pointing out that if the BIOS interrupts are not used then the
task is not feasible. Your point about the viability of NET USE printer
commands is taken, and probably confirms that this is a more than
feasible
On 4/24/2014 12:05 PM, Charles Belhumeur wrote:
snip
You really need to stop using questionable language on public mailing
lists. The rest of us do not want to read your rants, especially when
they are laced with words that do not belong here. It is offensive.
On 3/26/2014 11:11 PM, Charles Belhumeur wrote:
Tough line to walk folks! You wanna clone DOS but yet you don't want
to be tainted by any suggestions you owe anything to DOS! Think
that over a little. Say it to yourself and see how it sounds.
Sure it sounds funny, but the funny part is not
On 1/23/2013 11:42 AM, Jim Hall wrote:
Hi. teogum replied to your other email on this topic, but here's my
contribution.
Today, FreeDOS is often used by three types of users:
1. People who want to play old DOS games
2. Developers, to run embedded systems
3. Businesses, to run legacy DOS
It has been a while and I've accumulated a lot of changes and fixes.
Here is what you can look forward to:
* Power awareness for virtual machines and laptops
*IRCjr fixes to improve compatibility with more servers
*Howto style documentation for setting up SLIP and PPP with mTCP
*FTPSrv
On 5/5/2012 1:27 AM, Martin Kelly wrote:
What comes across to me is that if you remove the what i was
suggesting entirely from the equation... That a) it all seems like to
much effort and its much easier to whinge about the current
compatiblity issues than try and implement a possible
Rugxulo,
You read into things too literally at times ... ;-0
The 808x series of processor was segmented. It was used on a machine
that reserved a portion of memory for system BIOS, system BIOS
extensions, and video RAM.
The first versions of the operating system (DOS) did very little to
Just my opinion, but here it is ...
Trying to do a new OS that resembles DOS but has modern features is not
feasible and not going to happen. The biggest problem is DOS
compatibility - as soon as you start messing with the memory management,
APIs or fixing the bugs then existing DOS software
On 12/27/2011 5:43 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
At the very least, we seem to have different definitions of
DOS-friendly here... ;-)
I would have to agree on your judgment of the comp.lang.c usenet
group though, that group doesn't serve any practical use whatsoever...:-}
Dropping a problem on
On 12/28/2011 9:23 AM, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
On 12/27/2011 5:43 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
At the very least, we seem to have different definitions of
DOS-friendly here... ;-)
I would have to agree on your judgment of the comp.lang.c usenet
group though, that group doesn't serve any
Forgive me, this is going to be long ...
I made a few attempts at creating a new virtual machine and installing
the preview. It was a bit rough around the edges, especially from a new
user perspective. If it took me a few tries to get things installed
then something is amiss.
Below are some
Blaauw wrote:
Op 27-12-2011 17:03, Michael B. Brutman schreef:
This check correctly found the hard drive with no partitions. But the
screen cleared too quickly; there should be a pause to show the results
of the fdisk check.
Ah, so at least JEMMEX works for you, didn't build a failsafe around
On 11/18/2011 4:24 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
In particular for games, I would not expect that they necessarily use
INT 16h functions to read the keyboard, specially when they come with
their own mapping of the keys.
You might have to get a level lower probably, messing with
On 10/3/2011 6:42 AM, Eric Auer wrote:
No, it actually behaves as expected if you see this in DOSEMU: Only
FAT drives have a DPB, but network / redirector / CD / DVD drives
do not, so as RBIL already says: FFh invalid or network drive ;-)
I missed the network drive part, which makes the code
On 9/14/2011 7:31 AM, Travis Siegel wrote:
Mike, I like your suggestions. One thing that always bothered me
about dos versions that have come out since ms dropped the ball is
their complete lack of inovation. I realize there's only so much
that can be done if you're intending to keep 100
Here is the link to the announcement:
http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=10488
To me this is a serious problem - losing a piece of the DOS community is
bad. Losing the place where a lot of the programmers hang out is even
worse.
Mike
I have been thinking about what a more modern DOS would look like. Some
ideas ...
- A task would look a lot like a single instance of DOS running
today. The address space of a task would look the same, so it would
have the interrupt table, BIOS area, video display buffer, expansion
ROMs,
In a not so long ago job assignment I spent a little time learning the
innards of KVM, qemu, and virtualization technology in general.
The virtualization environments are going to do a good job running your
instructions on real hardware. All modern hardware has support for
doing this,
On 8/1/2011 7:31 PM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
Op 30-7-2011 15:29, dos386 schreef:
Got the answer ???
- LZMA decompressible on 8086: YES
- LZMA vs NRV/UCL: LZMA (much?) slower decompression
- Ultra-Brutal-Effect: much slower compression,
no performance penalty on decompression (?)
I did a
On 7/15/2011 11:33 AM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
Op 15-7-2011 5:08, Michael B. Brutman schreef:
- How do I use the new installer that Jim has been working on?
It's in the new ISO that I plan to upload by Sunday evening. Still need
to work out some things to make it a smoother experience. The initial
I just took my first pass at installing 1.1 using the ISO image that
Bernd Blaauw provided a few days ago. I got it done, but it was not
without a few problems. I'll assume those are user errors until I can
prove otherwise.
Some general questions and comments from a newbie:
- How do I use
On 7/10/2011 10:25 AM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
Mike,
do you have any experience using UPX (executable file compressor) on
your programs? I'm wondering if
1) programs still load properly for you on 8086
2) smaller disksize + in-memory-decryption faster than loading entire file.
I'm pretty sure
I have a report from a user who is getting stale directory data when
running the mTCP FTP server. They are running a TSR in the background
which is updating a file once a day. If they connect to the FTP server
and look at the directory they will see the date and size of the file at
the time
On 7/10/2011 10:25 AM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
Op 7-7-2011 13:58, Michael B. Brutman schreef:
Mike
Mike,
do you have any experience using UPX (executable file compressor) on
your programs? I'm wondering if
1) programs still load properly for you on 8086
2) smaller disksize + in-memory
On 7/6/2011 7:10 PM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
Op 7-7-2011 1:32, Michael B. Brutman schreef:
mTCP FTP compares poorly to the native stack and FireFox there, but FTP
is working in a very limited environment:
* The TCP/IP socket receive buffer is tiny compared to the native
network stack
On 7/6/2011 7:10 PM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
For DHCP I can imagine various errorlevels for different reasons:
* missing MTCPCFG variable
* MTCPCFG variable points to non-existing file
* missing PACKETINT keyword in file
* unable to write to MTCPCFG file (yay hidden/readonly)
* packetdriver not
On 7/6/2011 7:10 PM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
That funny URI syntax was grafted on. What exact URI are you using? Are
you adding ftp://; or just // ?
FreeCOM (maybe also MSDOS command.com or 4DOS) seem to split arguments
at the / level. See the FOR LOOP in my batchfile, with batchfile
called as:
Just for grins I did a little speed testing comparing mTCP running in a
VM to native FTP under Windows XP. Here are the results:
File size: 32MB
Source: Linux 2.6.x running on a Pentium 233, local 100Mb/sec connection
Windows XP command line FTP client: ~8950KB/sec
LFTP running under Cygwin:
On 7/6/2011 6:02 PM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
ftp://ftp.xs4all.nl/pub/test/10mb.bin :
1) 2.0 to 2.5MByte/second ( around 20Mbit/s, 25Mbit ISP subscription)
2) N/A , WGET not working
3) 500Kbyte/second ( around 4Mbit/s)
mTCP FTP compares poorly to the native stack and FireFox there, but FTP
is
Thanks for the plugs for mTCP - I am buried in work and away from email
for a good part of the day.
There are a lot more WATTCP apps out there because WATTCP has been
around a lot longer, and there is a benefit to that long term
stability. I think that I have covered the more popular
On 7/2/2011 7:42 PM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
Op 3-7-2011 1:54, François Revol schreef:
Any of those two supports IPv6 ? So FreeDOS can survive the IPcalypse :D
Don't think so.
Stuff I can think of which is missing:
1) WGET/CURL
2) WOL-client to wake up machines in the network by sending magic
37 matches
Mail list logo
