Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS EDIT (was XDMA, SHSUCDX and other split-version programs)
Eric: PLEASE stop posting MULTIPLE topics in a SINGLE email. This makes it very difficult for anyone to find reply to your posts!!! :-| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More talking about split programs, by the way: EDIT 0.7c should be better than 0.82 in most aspects at the moment, please let me know if EDIT 0.7c is worse than 0.82 in any important way... MEM 1.7 beta is better than 1.6 as far as I can tell, and MEMA by Arkady is mostly different but neither better nor worse than MEM, but this is better explained by Arkady. I most probably have overlooked some bugs or features in either of the MEMs. Whatever. I had tried to contact Joe Cosentino off-list, but never heard back from him, even after several re-attempts. So I'll assume that Joe doesn't mind that Eric has forked a copy of FreeDOS EDIT. I've mirrored Eric's releases of his new forked EDIT at ibiblio (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/dos/edit/eric/) and modified Eric's LSM before adding it to the Software List (http://freedos.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/freedos-lsm.cgi?q=fa=base/edit-eric.lsm) ** I try not to edit other people's LSMs before adding them to the database, but since this involves a forked program, I didn't want to leave the LSM unchanged as it would confuse people. I haven't removed Joe's FreeDOS EDIT from the Software List, but I am happy to do so if people tell me that Eric's FreeDOS EDIT is preferable. I feel strongly that we should avoid duplication on the Software List, so I'd like to hear back from the group soon as to which EDIT should remain on the list. If there aren't any follow-ups to this thread, I'll assume that people don't care, and I'll promote the EDIT that's actually got an active maintainer to be the new FreeDOS EDIT. -jh -- I'm sorry my president's an idiot. I didn't vote for him. --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477alloc_id=16492op=click ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] XDMA, SHSUCDX and other split-version programs
Let's keep this thread only for XDMA and SHSUCDX ... please leave discussion about Eric's FreeDOS EDIT to the other thread. Thanks. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I think XDMA belongs in Util since it doesn't try to duplicate functionality in MS-DOS. We made an exception with UDMA and UDMA2, though .. and I guess I'm open to discussion about moving XDMA into Base as well. I think neither belongs to BASE. Instead, it would be very good to stop doing mini-distros which contain only BASE all the time. People who want other categories still have to download every single package or have to use beta 8 (!). If this turns out to be not possible (not enough people who have time to ZIP up packages in FreeDOS directory structure to make them ready for inclusion in the distro), I would STILL not make *DMA drivers BASE, but just include them anyway ;-). I mean: Have at least a BASE plus the most useful packages of the other categories distro in that case. This is up to the person making the distributions. There's no law that states a FreeDOS distribution must include only the software on the 'Base' list, or that it must use any of the utilities on our software list, at all. I maintain the software list these days, not the FreeDOS distributions (and I prefer not to maintain the distros.) However, I feel it is important to categorize utilities appropriately. I try to reserve the 'Base' list for only those programs that reproduce the functionality of MS-DOS. I think we've added only a FEW programs that don't replicate MS-DOS behavior, but are otherwise extremely useful in a modern DOS. I think that's how UDMA got on the 'Base' list, for example. And UDMA2 (UDMA devel) was put there because it was supposed to be the next generation of UDMA. I decided not to put XDMA on the 'Base' list because it was a stripped down derivative of UDMA/UDMA2, not a replacement. Finally, as far as I understand, the Jack-versions are not overly great anyway: Jack started UDMA, and Lucho worked (together with Jack, I guess) on UDMA2, which has priority on being not only small but also reliable. XDMA seems to be just a stripped down version of UDMA with LESS sanity checks. Nothing that I would recommend to use. About the Jack-version of SHSUCDX: Jason has completely stuffed his SHSUCDX with macros, which means that you need a new and 32bit version of NASM to compile it at all (16bit has not enough RAM...) and that you have to use -O3 or better -O9 optimize option for NASM, because non-optimizing NASM mode gets so confused by the macros that you get a broken (double size) binary. As Jason thinks it is still okay that way, but Jack does not, Jack created a SHSUCDX version by just resolving and removing ALL macros (as far as I understand). Apart from that, both versions are very similar. The Jason-version has some unused buffers in the TSR, which Jack optimized away, but that is more or less the only problem with the Jason-binary. Source- wise, the Jack-version is hard to read because of the complete removal of macros (automatic resolving, I assume) and the Jason- version is hard to read because of the heavy use of macros. So I personally would not recommend XDMA, and I have problems to decide whether the Jack- or the Jason-SHSUCDX is the better one. Yeah, I'm not sure what to do with the two SHSUCDX's, either. As I mentioned in my other email: I feel strongly that we should avoid duplication on the Software List. My intuition is that if there isn't a major difference between them (i.e. more functionality, better stability, etc.) then it's best to just stick with the one that's being actively maintained. And maybe that means we only include Jason's SHSUCDX, since he does seem to be actively working on it, and Jack only seems to be releasing a cleanup version of specific releases of Jason's SHSUCDX. Of course, Jack has every right to release his own hacks against Jason's SHSUCDX, since the program was released under a non-specific, open-source, freeware license that does not take away any freedoms. I'd like to hear from others to get your opinion: which should stay on the FreeDOS software list, and which should be dropped? Does Jack's version have any extra benefits over Jason's original? Sounds like there isn't a difference in functionality or bugs between Jason's and Jack's SHSUCDX. That may be the deciding factor here. If there aren't any opinions either way, I think I'll drop Jack's, and keep Jason's on the list. -jh -- I'm sorry my president's an idiot. I didn't vote for him. --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477alloc_id=16492op=click ___ Freedos-user mailing
[Freedos-user] SHSUCDX and other split-version programs
Jim Hall wrote: Does Jack's version have any extra benefits over Jason's original? AFAIK,only smaller executable and resident sizes. Sounds like there isn't a difference in functionality or bugs between Jason's and Jack's SHSUCDX. That may be the deciding factor here. I did not yet find any, too. If there aren't any opinions either way, I think I'll drop Jack's, and keep Jason's on the list. Please don't hurry. JAS --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477alloc_id=16492op=click ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] HIMEM versus FDXMS
Eric Auer wrote: Finally, HIMEM versus FD*XMS*: This is simple, HIMEM is better and only HIMEM supports EMS/XMS memory pool sharing (as does e.g. MS HIMEM, it is only that FD*XMS* saves a bit of space by not having the support). Other than support for memory pool sharing, what are the advantages of HIMEM over FDXMS ? So you would ONLY want to use FD*XMS* if you either have a 286 (FDXMS286) or want to show some radical style by mixing drivers without reason ;-). If I use XMS but not EMS, I can save some bytes in UMB (real-mode UMB) by using FDXMS instead of HIMEM, enough to be able to load high some other driver or TSR. And, by the way, it is GOOD that only FDXMS286 supports 286. The overhead / development work to get some combined driver from 286 to 4 GBytes would certainly not be worth the effort given the lack of living 286 PCs today. I would add, also to have different drivers for up to 64 MB and more than 64 MB physical RAM. JAS --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477alloc_id=16492op=click ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] re: HIMEM versus FDXMS
Hi! Other than support for memory pool sharing, what are the advantages of HIMEM over FDXMS ? HIMEM supports more methods to control the A20, so it supports more PCs. Plus HIMEM has several command line configuration possibilities more. If I use XMS but not EMS, I can save some bytes in UMB (real-mode UMB) by using FDXMS instead of HIMEM... How big is that difference at the moment? I would add, also to have different drivers for up to 64 MB and more than 64 MB physical RAM. HIMEM supports all sizes of RAM already, but is limited to 386 and newer CPU. For FD*XMS*, you have one up to 64MB version and one unlimited version, and the up to 64MB version is smaller on disk and in RAM. You also have a third version, FDXMS286. This works on 286 CPU and is limited to 64 MB (on 286 even 16 MB) RAM. Eric PS: Supporting memory pool sharing means that you have to follow the MS style handle table data format in the up to 4 GB variant. Both FD*XMS* family and the Deskwork.de variant of FD HIMEM save some DOS RAM by not supporting memory pool sharing that way. --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477alloc_id=16492op=click ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] What about a GUI
So, got a MS-DOS compatible operating system. But what about a GUI ? It would be rather cool to have a GUI, similiar to GNOME or KDE for Linux. Or maybe to modify FreeDos so that KDE or GNOME can work on it. Just an idea :) Yours, DJ Shaji Send instant messages to your online friends http://in.messenger.yahoo.com --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477_id=16492=click ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] What about a GUI
DJ Shaji wrote: So, got a MS-DOS compatible operating system. But what about a GUI ? It would be rather cool to have a GUI, similiar to GNOME or KDE for Linux. Or maybe to modify FreeDos so that KDE or GNOME can work on it. Just an idea :) Well, there are 3 GUIs that are often used with FreeDOS: 1. OpenGEM (also, GEMini) - http://gem.shaneland.co.uk/screenshots.html It is a very nice user interface. I'm fond of it. 2. SEAL - http://sealsystem.sourceforge.net/images/screenshots/seal-2.00.11-ss1.png Looks very KDE-like, but hasn't been touched/updated in a long time. 3. DESKTOP2 - http://wwwisg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~fritter/idx-desktop.html Doesn't look like GNOME or KDE, but you may like it anyway. -jh -- I'm sorry my president's an idiot. I didn't vote for him. --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477alloc_id=16492op=click ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Old Os and FreeDOS
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:03:27 -0400, you wrote: Hi Jason, I'm offering you some services, possibly by mirroring some of your documentation, or possibly having one or two of our new howtos directed toward getting freedos to work with some things. If there's anything I can do, lemme know. Thanks for helping, Jim will be happy to have one more mirror site. Rgds, Johnson. --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477alloc_id=16492op=click ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
