I verified the game won't run with 64M, 32M, & 16M. They all fail
with the EMS error. Added LOAD to the JEMMEX line as well. No
positive effect. Host is an Apple Mac Mini 2.3GHz C2D with 16GB RAM
running the latest Virtual Box 4.2. The VM is configured with VT-X.
*If* you're interested, you c
Hi Karen,
> I can assure you that none of the computers I have running this
> system know the difference as to official or not. They boot as
> ms dos, function as ms dos, perhaps a touch better, and remain
> solid for me as ms dos.
If you don't have appropriate Windows' license, you are using
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Karen Lewellen
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> indeed they are referring to doslfn, but as I am not sure, I have written
> to ask just what edition. Also which of freedos.
> they sent me the line they are loading...thoughts?
>
> LH DOSLFN /Z:C:\DOS71\CP437UNI.TBL
>
> I fee
At 08:45 PM 9/17/2012, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>You are too funny!
>consult the rest of the thread.
For exactly what?
Ralf
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Karen Lewellen
wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
> this post made me smile.
> how command.com is documented vs how it works indeed.
> I am not sure what edition of freedos is being run, have written to ask.
Invite your friend to join us and participate directly.
> Thanks for
Hi Dennis,
this post made me smile.
how command.com is documented vs how it works indeed.
I am not sure what edition of freedos is being run, have written to ask.
Thanks for your wisdom,
Karen
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, dmccunney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Karen Lewellen
> wrote:
>> Doe
Hi Chris,
indeed they are referring to doslfn, but as I am not sure, I have written
to ask just what edition. Also which of freedos.
they sent me the line they are loading...thoughts?
LH DOSLFN /Z:C:\DOS71\CP437UNI.TBL
I feel sure they are not running what is current, and as their complaint
You are too funny!
consult the rest of the thread.
As for Dr dos, many sites would dispute this, but that is beyond the
scope of this discussion.
Karen
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 04:48 PM 9/17/2012, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>> Granted, I am a media professional, so facts especia
At 04:48 PM 9/17/2012, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>Granted, I am a media professional, so facts especially n the Internet
>are important.
>the fact is ms dos 7.1 under wind 98 had fat 32, even Dr dos in 99 has it.
The fact is that there never was a "MS-DOS 7.1", it just happened
that the underlying DO
Hi Chris,
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, C. Masloch wrote:
>
>> for my part, the edition of ms dos 7 i run was packaged by developers
>> much like yourselves.
>
> I maybe would personally prefer not to be compared to them.
Smiles, I can respect that. Integrity of course, especially as I am not
totally
The talk about different versions of DOS reminds me that I've been doing
research recently about which DOS operating systems are available.
Here is how I see it:
FreeDOS: FAT32 and LBA support, LFN support loadable which can avoid M$ patent
issues
Seems to work well but some think it's not
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Karen Lewellen
wrote:
> Does freedos have its own long file name utility?
Yes. It's a loadable driver.
> If so, is it close enough to ms dos to be run?
It seems to work here.
> Just curious, the person I know seeking it says they are running freedos,
> but the
Hi Karen,
> Does freedos have its own long file name utility?
> If so, is it close enough to ms dos to be run?
> Just curious, the person I know seeking it says they are running freedos,
> but they are using the old ms dos 7.1 lfn command.
> Made little sense to me, unless there is no specific fre
Thanks Chris,
I did not see the first message as having gone through. I had forwarded
some of the other messages to my home computer that did not go through
either. Figured I had fat fingered the address on my small keys on my
DROID! Regards
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
-
Hey Doug,
Just a quick notice to you: at least my client already properly received a
similar message from you on this same list, on 2012-09-17 01:11:00 +0200.
I assume you might have accidentally sent both of those messages, instead
of just one.
Regards,
Chris
> still the point is as you shared yourself, "might be understood " to mean
> older stand alone ms dos, it might not as well. be understood..that is.
I agree.
> for my part, the edition of ms dos 7 i run was packaged by developers
> much like yourselves.
I maybe would personally prefer not
Does freedos have its own long file name utility?
If so, is it close enough to ms dos to be run?
Just curious, the person I know seeking it says they are running freedos,
but they are using the old ms dos 7.1 lfn command.
Made little sense to me, unless there is no specific freedos utility for
it
Does anyone know of a manufacturer of a SBC PC104 that includes all hardware
including video interface for running FreeDOS? Thanks, Doug, K4CLE
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
--
Live Security Virtual Conferen
Chris,
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, C. Masloch wrote:
>
> This does not accurately describe the technical circumstances.
>
> If we were to discuss LFNs, in that case the MS-Windows-bundled DOS
> versions alone did indeed only provide rudimentary help and application
> support, with the important core LF
Hi Chris,
Thanks for including the entire passage.
still the point is as you shared yourself, "might be understood " to mean
older stand
alone ms dos, it might not as well.
be understood..that is.
Why showcase what is subject to misinterpretation when their are aspects,
you bring up another s
Granted, I am a media professional, so facts especially n the Internet
are important.
the fact is ms dos 7.1 under wind 98 had fat 32, even Dr dos in 99 has it.
if freedos wants to suggest that it is distinctive from older editions of
dos, especially if fat 32 did not exist inf freedos circle 1
> Yes, Win95 OSR (or whatever) introduced FAT32 later on, but it wasn't
> in DOS per se,
This does not accurately describe the technical circumstances.
If we were to discuss LFNs, in that case the MS-Windows-bundled DOS
versions alone did indeed only provide rudimentary help and application
s
> why does the line
> "unlike the old ms dos freedos lets you access fat 32 file systems"
> appear?
> fat 32 file systems existed in ms dos about 1997 or so.
> I have fat 32 partitions on my ms dos system in fact, and there is no
> windows on my computer whatsoever.
> While there are likely many th
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Karen Lewellen
wrote:
>
> all the talk about the site motivated me to take a quick look.
> why does the line
> "unlike the old ms dos freedos lets you access fat 32 file systems"
> appear?
> fat 32 file systems existed in ms dos about 1997 or so.
> I have fat
Hi,
all the talk about the site motivated me to take a quick look.
why does the line
"unlike the old ms dos freedos lets you access fat 32 file systems"
appear?
fat 32 file systems existed in ms dos about 1997 or so.
I have fat 32 partitions on my ms dos system in fact, and there is no
windows on
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Aitor Santamaría wrote:
>
> As you see, I am "a bit" delayed with mail.
No pressure! ;-)
> The site looks very nice and neat now!!!
Yes it does. :-)
> I was just wandering, whatever happened to those old technotes
> (usually text or mail exceprts) that
Hi Jim
As you see, I am "a bit" delayed with mail.
The site looks very nice and neat now!!!
I was just wandering, whatever happened to those old technotes
(usually text or mail exceprts) that there used to be?
Aitor
2012/2/20 Jim Hall :
> I am looking to make a few improvements to the www.freed
27 matches
Mail list logo
