On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Michael Robinson
plu...@robinson-west.com wrote:
A protected mode dos like the one under Windows 9x and Windows ME
could be interesting and would justifiably deserve a different name
like Freedos-32. The problem with a dos environment is that there
isn't an
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Michael Robinson
plu...@robinson-west.com wrote:
There are some programs that require Windows 3.1 or 3.11 which can run
on top of Freedos, but more work on compatibility would not hurt.
While I agree in theory, there just aren't enough skilled developers
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:38 AM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Michael Robinson
plu...@robinson-west.com wrote:
A protected mode dos like the one under Windows 9x and Windows ME
could be interesting and would justifiably deserve a different
Hi,
On Jan 9, 2013 11:06 AM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought WinME removed the real mode bootup, hence lower compatibility?
I'm
pretty sure there was still DOS underneath like in ME. Removing the
real
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 9, 2013 11:06 AM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought WinME removed the real mode bootup, hence lower compatibility?
I'm pretty sure
-Original Message-
From: dmccunney [mailto:dennis.mccun...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:05 PM
To: Discussion and general questions about FreeDOS.
Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM, David C. Kerber
dker...@warrenrogersassociates.com wrote:
From: dmccunney [mailto:dennis.mccun...@gmail.com]
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought WinME removed the real mode bootup, hence lower
compatibility?
Don't have
A hypervisor that can run dosbox and make modern hardware work
with old dos programs anyone? How about dosbox running on a Pentium 133
or a Pentium 166 machine with 16 megs of ram?
Insufficient demand to justify the effort.
There may not be a lot of demand, but I see it as an interesting
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:43 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 9, 2013 11:06 AM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
At the moment, I'm
Most embedded processors (that are still actively produced) are
32-bit. Anyways, I don't think FreeDOS qualifies, at least not for
8-bit (AVR??) ones.
PIC16F505, PIC16F1938... these are microchip baseline 8 bit
microprocessors intended for embedded use. Yes microchip offers
32 bit
An interesting historical note, early versions of the FreeDOS kernel (DOS-C
kernel) were portable to the 68k architecture. See (
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Villani).
-L
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
At 04:15 PM 1/9/2013, Michael Robinson wrote:
Most embedded
At 05:12 PM 1/9/2013, Louis Santillan wrote:
An interesting historical note, early versions of the FreeDOS kernel
(DOS-C kernel) were portable to the 68k architecture. See
(http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Villanihttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Villani).
Well, you noticed that in that
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 05:12 PM 1/9/2013, Louis Santillan wrote:
An interesting historical note, early versions of the FreeDOS kernel
(DOS-C kernel) were portable to the 68k architecture. See
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:43 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
EMS used a 64KB page frame located in the block between 640K and 1MB,
and paged memory above 1MB into it for use.
I vaguely thought EMS 4.0 didn't need a page frame? (Where's Eric to explain
all this when you
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org wrote:
A hypervisor that can run dosbox and make modern hardware work
with old dos programs anyone? How about dosbox running on a Pentium 133
or a Pentium 166 machine with 16 megs of ram?
Insufficient demand to justify the
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 05:12 PM 1/9/2013, Louis Santillan wrote:
An interesting historical note, early versions of the FreeDOS kernel
(DOS-C kernel) were portable to
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 05:12 PM 1/9/2013, Louis Santillan wrote:
An interesting historical note, early
There's always DEBUG QBASIC. :D Remember when magazines used to actually
post DEBUG QBASIC scripts.
-L
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:54 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, dmccunney
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM, David C. Kerber
dker...@warrenrogersassociates.com wrote:
From: dmccunney [mailto:dennis.mccun...@gmail.com]
On Wed,
19 matches
Mail list logo
