Re: [Freedos-user] was: Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches 2037/2038
Simple: If you only use WIN /S then you can use the stable 2036 or stable 2038 kernel. The latter is on http://rugxulo.googlepages.com/ as binary snapshot. There are a few pending improvements before 2038 can be put on sourceforge file releases... The sources already are on sourceforge in our svn, of course :-) If there's a stable 2038, then that should get put on ibiblio for general release as soon as possible. If it's on rugxulo's pages, then very few people will know about it (heck, *I* didn't know about it - see my other email.) If you're waiting for further improvements to 2038 before you release 2038, then you're doing this wrong. [...] I'd strongly recommend making 2038 available, and putting the few pending improvements in 2039. The problem is that Eric holds back at least three necessary patches, of which two are already provided in source form. He doesn't exactly have to wait for these, we've completely described them. (The first one on the list, others in the FreeDOS bugtracker or old private e-mails.) Since it seems Eric doesn't exactly want to be the kernel maintainer, you need someone else for that. The mentioned patches are: - Terminating self-owning PSPs (parent PSP field set to the PSP) doesn't work. There's a patch for this in inthndlr.c but it's wrong and leads to crashes. The patch in inthndlr.c (below case 0x4c of the main Int21 handler) has to be removed, and the condition of a self-owning PSP has to be handled like a TSR termination in the return_user function in task.c. 2037 is affected by this, too. - CALL 5 interface is broken, and probably crashes the system. The Assembly code in entry.asm that handles such calls is screwed up. I can provide working replacement code or patch it to work how it's supposed to. 2037 is affected by this, too. - The seek position (and various other fields) of the SFT isn't declared as unsigned. Eric reported that the seek function reports errors using negative return values. This has to be changed so that it can work with files up to 4 GiB. Depending on when the seek function is called (whether it's already determined that the handle references a valid SFT, and that the origin in al is valid) you might just remove any error reporting of it, since the actual seek operation never returns errors in MS-DOS (as mentioned in RBIL and UDOS too). 2037 seems not to be affected by this, at least the case 0x42 in inthndlr.c should work with larger seek positions. I've CCed the Freedos-kernel list, too. Regards, Christian -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] an installation problem
I'm not an experienced user... The problem is that I can't install FreeDos to boot it separately from WinXP and DOS.7.1: it doesn't create fdboot file (at the moment I can't remember the proper name of it, and not at home now to see it) on the disk C: - while installing before DOS71 and WinXP. I don't know why it does not. When I copy this file from previous installations, it can't find the kernel file (which does exist on the disk C:) Once a time ago I had resolved such a kind of problem, but just now I don't remember the way I did it:( And now once I have reinstalled everything on my PC, the things go as are reported:( All the ways I'm trying now give no result. So I must use the FreeDos from behind of the DOS.7.1 - but I'd prefere to do it direcly and separately - as is Sorry for my English -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] an installation problem
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 8:45 AM, teo gum teo...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not an experienced user... The problem is that I can't install FreeDos to boot it separately from WinXP and DOS.7.1: it doesn't create fdboot file (at the moment I can't remember the proper name of it, and not at home now to see it) on the disk C: - while installing before DOS71 and WinXP. I don't know why it does not. When I copy this file from previous installations, it can't find the kernel file (which does exist on the disk C:) Once a time ago I had resolved such a kind of problem, but just now I don't remember the way I did it:( And now once I have reinstalled everything on my PC, the things go as are reported:( All the ways I'm trying now give no result. So I must use the FreeDos from behind of the DOS.7.1 - but I'd prefere to do it direcly and separately - as is Sorry for my English If you're already running Windows XP, you may consider booting FreeDOS from within a virtual machine. You can use VMWare, or VirtualPC, to do this. It's easy! Actually, in the final months before we had released 1.0, I booted all the test distributions in a virtual machine, and not a physical PC. -jh -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] was: Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches 2037/2038
Windows 3x Issues I was reading the Undocumented Dos book and according to it Win 3.x goes to extraordinary lengths to insure that the operating system it is running on os MSDos and not one of the alternatives. Plus it replaces parts of DOS while running. (Either for underhanded as the book hints at or legitimate concerns it doesn't matter at this point) This probably some of the reason for the problems. Win 3.x will probably never be 100% on FreeDos, nor will a compatible Win 3.x GUI ever be 100%. I have been researching what it would take to make a Win 3.x compatible GUI. I wanted to write a GUI might as well make one that is useful, there are enough new ones out there that are new. I think its possible, and in the long run its probably better. If one runs the Win 3.x /FreeDos then is the GUI/OS that will be unstable. If there is a compatible GUI, then it should be the hopefully rare application that is unstable. Better to have a stable GUI/OS than I think. I think this could be done there is plenty of ports out there to either use or learn from: HX DOS Extender (although there is the lack of license with the source code provided.) Wine Project for Linux Reactos As for the GUI again plenty out there NanoX wxWidgets I have been looking and asking questions on both of the Wine and ReactOS forums and it looks promising. I think I will buy a copy of windows 3.x on EBay and use that for comparison. I can barely remember what it looked like and what is all there. LOL I was thinking of calling the GUI Janus after the code name for windows 3.11. Which I think should be ok legalwise. Thoughts? The lack of license for HX DOS Extender concerns me a bit as well. If code is posted with no license can it be considered public domain? I emailed the author but have not gotten a response. Also I remember from my pre dot net days using a program which would inspect a dll and identify all the public methods/functions that it has. Would this be considered legal? If so anyone remember what that program is/was? I used it at a client site to integrate with a 3rd party DLL and application. Any thoughts, advice, windows 3.1 programming SDK, documentation would most helpful. usul -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] was: Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches 2037/2038
I was thinking of calling the GUI Janus after the code name for windows 3.11. Which I think should be ok legalwise. Thoughts? hmm you could name it after the Roman god Janus, thinking of looking back to DOS and forward to a GUI? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus In Roman mythology, Janus (or Ianus) was the god of gates, doors, doorways, beginnings and endings. His most prominent remnants in modern culture are his namesakes: the month of January, which begins the new year, and the janitor, who is a caretaker of doors and halls. He is most often depicted as having two faces or heads, facing in opposite directions. Janus is believed to be one of the few major deities in Roman mythology that does not have a Greek origin or counterpart. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] an installation problem
Thank you I did a mistake in my previous message: the problem exists not only in the before-installation, but in the after-instalaltion as well - no way to find a way) I suppose in the before-install the boot file must not be created - as for the unique OS at the moment. But in the after- one it should do - and does not. I think the problem is of me, not of the install method) - as once I could boot the three WinXP, DOS71 and FreeDos separately with the WinXP bootloader, only don`t remember what a way I did it. It`s more interesting to use the FreeDos as a pure system. And I`ll try till it goes well. I like your OS. Thank you) 2009/4/13, Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 8:45 AM, teo gum teo...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not an experienced user... The problem is that I can't install FreeDos to boot it separately from WinXP and DOS.7.1: it doesn't create fdboot file (at the moment I can't remember the proper name of it, and not at home now to see it) on the disk C: - while installing before DOS71 and WinXP. I don't know why it does not. When I copy this file from previous installations, it can't find the kernel file (which does exist on the disk C:) Once a time ago I had resolved such a kind of problem, but just now I don't remember the way I did it:( And now once I have reinstalled everything on my PC, the things go as are reported:( All the ways I'm trying now give no result. So I must use the FreeDos from behind of the DOS.7.1 - but I'd prefere to do it direcly and separately - as is Sorry for my English If you're already running Windows XP, you may consider booting FreeDOS from within a virtual machine. You can use VMWare, or VirtualPC, to do this. It's easy! Actually, in the final months before we had released 1.0, I booted all the test distributions in a virtual machine, and not a physical PC. -jh -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] was: Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches 2037/2038
I was reading the Undocumented Dos book and according to it Win 3.x goes to extraordinary lengths to insure that the operating system it is running on os MSDos and not one of the alternatives. Yes, but note that the described AARD code is not really used in any retail release (UDOS 2nd Edition, p.15) and doesn't really influence the performance of Windows even if it's used. Plus it replaces parts of DOS while running. (Either for underhanded as the book hints at or legitimate concerns it doesn't matter at this point) This probably some of the reason for the problems. Win 3.x will probably never be 100% on FreeDos, nor will a compatible Win 3.x GUI ever be 100%. Some sites suggest to switch off the 32-bit disk access and 32-bit file access (if the used Windows version supports either) because they conflict with larger or newer disks and FAT32. Some other SYSTEM.INI settings regarding DOS critical section handling and stuff might also be useful to setup a stable Windows configuration for a non-MS DOS. I have been looking and asking questions on both of the Wine and ReactOS forums and it looks promising. I think I will buy a copy of windows 3.x on EBay and use that for comparison. I can barely remember what it looked like and what is all there. LOL I was thinking of calling the GUI Janus after the code name for windows 3.11. Which I think should be ok legalwise. Thoughts? Sounds good. The lack of license for HX DOS Extender concerns me a bit as well. If code is posted with no license can it be considered public domain? I emailed the author but have not gotten a response. Well, it's called freeware (including the source code). I think you can use it for anything, but wait for someone else to answer this. Also I remember from my pre dot net days using a program which would inspect a dll and identify all the public methods/functions that it has. Would this be considered legal? If so anyone remember what that program is/was? I used it at a client site to integrate with a 3rd party DLL and application. Since disassembling MS-DOS is considered legal by UDOS and RBIL authors (and these sources are considered legal by all members of the FreeDOS project) I think there's no problem using some DLL examination tool. Regards, Christian -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] was: Windows 3.1 - Pending kernel patches 2037/2038
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Adam Norton usul.the.mo...@gmail.comwrote: Windows 3x Issues I was reading the Undocumented Dos book and according to it Win 3.x goes to extraordinary lengths to insure that the operating system it is running on os MSDos and not one of the alternatives. Plus it replaces parts of DOS while running. (Either for underhanded as the book hints at or legitimate concerns it doesn't matter at this point) This probably some of the reason for the problems. Win 3.x will probably never be 100% on FreeDos, nor will a compatible Win 3.x GUI ever be 100%. I have been researching what it would take to make a Win 3.x compatible GUI. I wanted to write a GUI might as well make one that is useful, there are enough new ones out there that are new. I think its possible, and in the long run its probably better. If one runs the Win 3.x /FreeDos then is the GUI/OS that will be unstable. If there is a compatible GUI, then it should be the hopefully rare application that is unstable. Better to have a stable GUI/OS than I think. I think this could be done there is plenty of ports out there to either use or learn from: HX DOS Extender (although there is the lack of license with the source code provided.) Wine Project for Linux Reactos As for the GUI again plenty out there NanoX wxWidgets I think Nano-X is a good thing to choose, but for the widgets UI base, I would instead suggest Qt. Qt is more stable, so less reason to possibly fork it. Plus, it's just a CSS file away from being restyled to look like Windows 3.1x! Plus, Qt is a complete framework, so you could literally implement the entire API as a front end to Qt itself, which would increase portability. I have been looking and asking questions on both of the Wine and ReactOS forums and it looks promising. I think I will buy a copy of windows 3.x on EBay and use that for comparison. I can barely remember what it looked like and what is all there. LOL First: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win311fw ( :P) Second: http://www.weblust.com/winbible/BibleTop.html Third: http://eburl.net/8958b Any thoughts, advice, windows 3.1 programming SDK, documentation would most helpful. usul I do have a copy of the Windows 3.1 programming SDK on a backup disc, which came with a copy of MSVC 1.52c Maybe that would help? Also, a few links to help ya out: One: http://eburl.net/8b1e6f Two: http://eburl.net/275fe Three: http://eburl.net/ce66 Hope these help! -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
