Re: [Freedos-user] Problem running a DOS game requiring EMS inside of VirtualBox
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 can find out more about the game here (http://www.fbpro-online.com/). -L On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Louis Santillan wrote: >> I tried 64MB & 32MB. The game still sees 0K EMS. Mem/c also reports 0K >> available via Int 15h which seems odd. > > Ignore MEM, it often reports wrong numbers on things other than > conventional memory. > > Dunno exactly what to tell you. Try 16 MB RAM. Try manually loading > JEMMEX from cmdline (e.g. "JEMMEX X=TEST I=TEST LOAD"). > > Which VirtualBox are you using? Atop Windows, I presume? Is VT-X enabled? > > Honestly, I hate to say it, but VirtualBox (without VT-X) is buggy and > slow, so it's semi-useless for DOS stuff. I was using it yesterday on > my laptop, and it was painful. I don't blame them, it's hard work, but > it's still frustrating for an end user. It actually seemed that 32-bit > pmode stuff was much slower than (presumably easier to emulate) 16-bit > real mode stuff. > > You'll have to tweak a lot to try. Unfortunately none of us has that > particular game, so we can't test for you. Try creating a minimal > CONFIG.SYS + AUTOEXEC.BAT to minimize chances that other stuff is > interfering. > > You might just be better off running DOSBox, which is specifically > meant for games. It's certainly easier to setup. > > http://www.dosbox.com/comp_list.php?showID=1882&letter=F > > According to that page, this game seems to be working (says Lucasfr) in > DOSBox. > > -- > How fast is your code? > 3 out of 4 devs don\\\'t know how their code performs in production. > Find out how slow your code is with AppDynamics Lite. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;262219672;13503038;z? > http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 pirated software. It's easy as that. There were no commercially avaialable versions of MS DOS after 6.22. If you are running so called MS DOS 7.0+, You are legally running Windows 9x. That fact can be easily confirmed. Some of the binaries even contain strings that point to appropriate Windows version. Even if it works, looks and feels like MS DOS, it requires Windows license and it was sold as Windows. So, no: that's not MS DOS. That's Windows 95(A,B,C) or 98(SE). Bojan. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] about lfn...?
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 feel sure they are not running what is current, and as their complaint > is that the line does not work, it may not be by choice. > Still part of their issue has to do with how wordperfect displays long > file names, which it can do, but which they may not have allowed. They may be going through more trouble than they have to. If I get what is being done here correctly, there probably ought to be a space between /Z: and C:\DOS71\CP437UNI.TBL, and the : following Z may be out of place. LH DOSLFN /Z C:\DOS71\CP437UNI.TBL The /Z switch specifies a code page to support, and the following parm is where to find it. Code page 437 is the standard IBM-PC code page, and is probably the default, so it may not be necessary to specify it at all. I load FreeDOS's LFN support here as "installhigh=c:\dev\doslfn.com " and things work. (I put such things in a \dev directory, because I like a Unix-like directory structure. > Thanks again, > Karen __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] about lfn...?
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 your wisdom, > Karen __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] about lfn...?
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: >> 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 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? > > There is a FreeDOS LFN utility, but your friend may be unaware of it, > may simply prefer to use the MS-DOS driver, or the FreeDOS driver may > have subtle incompatibilities with the MS-DOS driver that bites your > friend but does not bite others. > > FreeDOS is entirely written by third party users with no MS-DOS code > to refer to, who had to reverse engineer what DOS did and try to > create software that did the same thing, Even if it works as MS-DOS > is *documented* to work, that may not be correct. Some time back, > someone was asking 4DOS author Rex Conn for a change to make it more > compatible with COMMAND.COM, and he asked "Do you want it to work the > way COMMAND.COM is *documented* to work, or the way it actually *does* > work?" > > The significant thing is that your friend can run FreeDOS and *get* > LFN support using MS driver. This means FreeDOS pretty much got > things right, as it tries to run anything real MS-DOS would. > >> thanks, >> Karen > __ > Dennis > https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] about lfn...?
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 is that the line does not work, it may not be by choice. Still part of their issue has to do with how wordperfect displays long file names, which it can do, but which they may not have allowed. Thanks again, Karen On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, C. Masloch wrote: > 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 freedos utility for >> it? > > It depends on what they mean by LFN command. I imagine they might be > referring to DOSLFN, the extension initially developed by Henrik Haftmann > which enables FAT's LFNs (for all LFN-aware applications) without needing > to load MS Windows. > > In that case, DOSLFN was developed to run on MS-DOS 7.00 and up initially, > but it now does function properly with older MS-DOS versions and others > such as DR-DOS and FreeDOS as well. In fact, it has been distributed along > with FreeDOS for some time, and most recently is maintained by Jason Hood > - not only for MS-DOS! In the FreeDOS website's software list, you can > find DOSLFN in the UTIL category, or with this direct link: > http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=doslfn > > If this doesn't seem similar enough to what they were referring to, it > might help if you could describe more what they and you mean by LFN > command. > > If they were referring to DOSLFN, then they can use their "old MS-DOS 7.1" > DOSLFN with FreeDOS, though it might be advisable for them to insure that > they're using an updated DOSLFN (for both MS-DOS and FreeDOS). If they > want that, please refer to Jason Hood's web page on DOSLFN (Primary site > in the software list entry, linked above) for selecting the appropriate > version - if you're using SHSUCDX or no CD FS redirector along with > DOSLFN, the latest DOSLFN version should be the right one. There's another > (older) one only required for using other CD FS redirectors such as MSCDEX > along with DOSLFN. The latest one is currently 0.41b, and the alternative > older one is 0.34d. > > Regards, > Chris > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 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 DOS mode of Windows 95B intensified itself with > that version. As mentioned, MS-DOS 6.22 was the last official version > of MS-DOS. > > And DR-DOS never officially supported FAT32 either, the last version > of "DR-DOS" was 6.0, released in 1991, followed by Novell DOS 7.0 in > December 1993. > Any FAT32 support for it only exists in some 3party support for an > unofficially maintained version of the later Caldera OpenDOS 7.x... > > So in light of all that, there is no false information on the FreeDOS > home page... > Ralf > > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 DOS mode of Windows 95B intensified itself with that version. As mentioned, MS-DOS 6.22 was the last official version of MS-DOS. And DR-DOS never officially supported FAT32 either, the last version of "DR-DOS" was 6.0, released in 1991, followed by Novell DOS 7.0 in December 1993. Any FAT32 support for it only exists in some 3party support for an unofficially maintained version of the later Caldera OpenDOS 7.x... So in light of all that, there is no false information on the FreeDOS home page... Ralf -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 sure if the package is legal.. I think it is, if only because it still exists, even findable via google. Microsoft shut down rather a few others I understand. > > I am not aware of any legitimate (legal) stand-alone MS-DOS versions 7 and > up. I have been made aware that apparently one or some highly questionable > "distributions" exist, but this mailing list probably isn't apt for > evaluating these. (To clarify if needed: the previous is only my personal > opinion.) Again I respect that. > >> is it bundled under windows? not at all. > > This might be right. I think it's not important whether that's true, > though. > > Significantly, these MS-DOS versions existed, even if we only consider > them when they were bundled with MS Windows (whether versions 4, or later > as the contents that a floppy disk receives if formatted to be "MS-DOS > bootable" or such). 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. I have been using computers since 1988, and have only run Dos. this main machine is a Pentium III with 784 meg of memory and two very large to dos standards hard drives. No bugs crashes, or windows, smiles. thanks, Karen > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Survey of available DOSes
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 suitable for production environments. No problem with license for any reason. MS-DOS 6.22: Rock solid, no LBA, FAT32 or LFN. Licenses difficult to come by. MS-DOS 7.1 Solid, LBA, FAT32, LFN License only available with an old copy of windows DR-DOS 7.03 Solid, no LBA, FAT32 or LFN. Licenses readily available. DR-DOS 8+ No licenses available. Enhanced DR-DOS - technically good with FAT32, LBA, LFN but no licenses are available except for a fuzzy "personal evaluation" Datalight ROM-DOS. Solid, supports, FAT32,LBA, LFN. SHARE is not supported on FAT32 for some reason. Licenses readily available. So it seems like if one is starting from scratch (ie does not have a pile of old licenses) then the only ones worth considering are FreeDOS and ROM-DOS. I suppose there are a couple of other DOS OS available (PTS DOS and maybe one other) but I'm not sure those are worth investigating. Any comments? Sorry - not trying to start a flaming discussion here, but I've been following FreeDOS for several years and only started to understand the above. Dave -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] about lfn...?
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 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? There is a FreeDOS LFN utility, but your friend may be unaware of it, may simply prefer to use the MS-DOS driver, or the FreeDOS driver may have subtle incompatibilities with the MS-DOS driver that bites your friend but does not bite others. FreeDOS is entirely written by third party users with no MS-DOS code to refer to, who had to reverse engineer what DOS did and try to create software that did the same thing, Even if it works as MS-DOS is *documented* to work, that may not be correct. Some time back, someone was asking 4DOS author Rex Conn for a change to make it more compatible with COMMAND.COM, and he asked "Do you want it to work the way COMMAND.COM is *documented* to work, or the way it actually *does* work?" The significant thing is that your friend can run FreeDOS and *get* LFN support using MS driver. This means FreeDOS pretty much got things right, as it tries to run anything real MS-DOS would. > thanks, > Karen __ Dennis https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519 -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] about lfn...?
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 freedos utility for > it? It depends on what they mean by LFN command. I imagine they might be referring to DOSLFN, the extension initially developed by Henrik Haftmann which enables FAT's LFNs (for all LFN-aware applications) without needing to load MS Windows. In that case, DOSLFN was developed to run on MS-DOS 7.00 and up initially, but it now does function properly with older MS-DOS versions and others such as DR-DOS and FreeDOS as well. In fact, it has been distributed along with FreeDOS for some time, and most recently is maintained by Jason Hood - not only for MS-DOS! In the FreeDOS website's software list, you can find DOSLFN in the UTIL category, or with this direct link: http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=doslfn If this doesn't seem similar enough to what they were referring to, it might help if you could describe more what they and you mean by LFN command. If they were referring to DOSLFN, then they can use their "old MS-DOS 7.1" DOSLFN with FreeDOS, though it might be advisable for them to insure that they're using an updated DOSLFN (for both MS-DOS and FreeDOS). If they want that, please refer to Jason Hood's web page on DOSLFN (Primary site in the software list entry, linked above) for selecting the appropriate version - if you're using SHSUCDX or no CD FS redirector along with DOSLFN, the latest DOSLFN version should be the right one. There's another (older) one only required for using other CD FS redirectors such as MSCDEX along with DOSLFN. The latest one is currently 0.41b, and the alternative older one is 0.34d. Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] PC104 for running FDOS
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 -Original message- From: "C. Masloch" To: "Discussion and general questions about FreeDOS." Sent: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 00:28:02 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] PC104 for running FDOS 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 - - Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] PC104 for running FDOS
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 -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
> 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 to be compared to them. > Is it official ms dos stand alone? perhaps not. I am not aware of any legitimate (legal) stand-alone MS-DOS versions 7 and up. I have been made aware that apparently one or some highly questionable "distributions" exist, but this mailing list probably isn't apt for evaluating these. (To clarify if needed: the previous is only my personal opinion.) > is it bundled under windows? not at all. This might be right. I think it's not important whether that's true, though. Significantly, these MS-DOS versions existed, even if we only consider them when they were bundled with MS Windows (whether versions 4, or later as the contents that a floppy disk receives if formatted to be "MS-DOS bootable" or such). Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] about lfn...?
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? thanks, Karen -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] PC104 for running FDOS
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 Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 LFN driver only inside Windows code. > However, opposed to the LFN situation, the MS Windows 4.10 implementation > of FAT32 was also accompanied by a DOS implementation of FAT32. > > So, FAT32 very much is "in DOS per se" there, though only in these new > Windows-bundled MS-DOS versions. which is exactly why the line should be changed. Other developers then took those dos editions, at least ms dos 7.1, added extra tools, and in around 2007 or so, made this package available. official? perhaps not, existing, absolutely. better sell what really makes you shine. Karen > > Regards, > Chris > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 sensational one, that are correct and not subject to miss interpreting? for my part, the edition of ms dos 7 i run was packaged by developers much like yourselves. Is it official ms dos stand alone? perhaps not. is it bundled under windows? not at all. Karen On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, C. Masloch wrote: >> 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 things freedos can do, networking for >> example?, the fat 32 one as distinguishing it from ms dos is false >> information and should be removed. > > I would suggest that we precisely quote the passage in question. I think > you're referring to this one (please correct me otherwise): > > page> FreeDOS is basically like the old MS-DOS, but better! > page> For example, unlike MS-DOS, FreeDOS lets you access > page> FAT32 file systems and use large disk support (LBA). > [This is found under the heading "Welcome to FreeDOS", in the answer "What > is FreeDOS?".] > > Now, you're correct that later MS-DOS versions (those typically only > bundled with MS Windows systems) did also support the FAT32 FS (as well as > LBA access). > > On the other hand, at least the first sentence quoted by me refers to "old > MS-DOS" specifically, which might be understood to refer to the earlier > (stand-alone) MS-DOS versions. > >> Honestly even stating that freedos is sill under development unlike ms >> dos is distinction enough, and correct. > > Another distinguishing feature important to many users (and developers > alike) is the freedoms that apply to core FreeDOS software, including of > course gratis unlimited redistribution which is completely legal for these. > > Regards, > Chris > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 1994, the line should say unlike ms dos 6.22, which is what you apparently? mean by the older ms dos. better still as I suggested use something totally unique to freedos like its being under development, or its networking abilities which did not exist in ms dos at all. given the people who may want to decide between you and say enhanced Dr dos, the more positive correctness you demonstrate the better. Just my take, Karen On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Rugxulo wrote: > 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 32 partitions on my ms dos system in fact, and there is no >> windows on my computer whatsoever. >> While there are likely many things freedos can do, networking for >> example?, the fat 32 one as distinguishing it from ms dos is false >> information and should be removed. >> Honestly even stating that freedos is sill under development unlike ms >> dos is distinction enough, and correct. > > MS-DOS 6.22 didn't support FAT32 out of the box (or really at all). > And that was the last truly stand-alone version of MS-DOS. > > Yes, Win95 OSR (or whatever) introduced FAT32 later on, but it wasn't > in DOS per se, hence most people with older copies couldn't use the > better file system. FAT16 can be really wasteful on big hard drives, > from cluster slack alone, not to mention the inherent limit on overall > partition size. So FAT32 is a big deal and wasn't always available in > FreeDOS either, at least not in 1994. ;-) > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
> 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 support, with the important core LFN driver only inside Windows code. However, opposed to the LFN situation, the MS Windows 4.10 implementation of FAT32 was also accompanied by a DOS implementation of FAT32. So, FAT32 very much is "in DOS per se" there, though only in these new Windows-bundled MS-DOS versions. Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
> 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 things freedos can do, networking for > example?, the fat 32 one as distinguishing it from ms dos is false > information and should be removed. I would suggest that we precisely quote the passage in question. I think you're referring to this one (please correct me otherwise): page> FreeDOS is basically like the old MS-DOS, but better! page> For example, unlike MS-DOS, FreeDOS lets you access page> FAT32 file systems and use large disk support (LBA). [This is found under the heading "Welcome to FreeDOS", in the answer "What is FreeDOS?".] Now, you're correct that later MS-DOS versions (those typically only bundled with MS Windows systems) did also support the FAT32 FS (as well as LBA access). On the other hand, at least the first sentence quoted by me refers to "old MS-DOS" specifically, which might be understood to refer to the earlier (stand-alone) MS-DOS versions. > Honestly even stating that freedos is sill under development unlike ms > dos is distinction enough, and correct. Another distinguishing feature important to many users (and developers alike) is the freedoms that apply to core FreeDOS software, including of course gratis unlimited redistribution which is completely legal for these. Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 32 partitions on my ms dos system in fact, and there is no > windows on my computer whatsoever. > While there are likely many things freedos can do, networking for > example?, the fat 32 one as distinguishing it from ms dos is false > information and should be removed. > Honestly even stating that freedos is sill under development unlike ms > dos is distinction enough, and correct. MS-DOS 6.22 didn't support FAT32 out of the box (or really at all). And that was the last truly stand-alone version of MS-DOS. Yes, Win95 OSR (or whatever) introduced FAT32 later on, but it wasn't in DOS per se, hence most people with older copies couldn't use the better file system. FAT16 can be really wasteful on big hard drives, from cluster slack alone, not to mention the inherent limit on overall partition size. So FAT32 is a big deal and wasn't always available in FreeDOS either, at least not in 1994. ;-) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 my computer whatsoever. While there are likely many things freedos can do, networking for example?, the fat 32 one as distinguishing it from ms dos is false information and should be removed. Honestly even stating that freedos is sill under development unlike ms dos is distinction enough, and correct. Karen -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Need your comments about the FreeDOS site
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 there used to be? You mean these or some others specifically? http://www.freedos.org/technotes/ Hmmm, I see a broken link or two. Maybe he never finished it or it was too much work (at the time)?? http://www.freedos.org/technotes/technote/ You mean like this? http://www.freedos.org/technotes/technote/203.html Dunno, but see below (mirror?). http://freedos.gds.tuwien.ac.at/freedos/news/technote/ That looks vaguely correct, I suppose! ;-) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Need your comments about the FreeDOS site
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.freedos.org web
> site, with a focus on making information easier to find. I am looking
> for YOUR COMMENTS to help me. I'd appreciate hearing from GENERAL
> USERS and DEVELOPERS, pretty much anyone who uses the FreeDOS web
> site. This should take about 5 minutes of your time.
>
> Over the years, I often get questions from new users, asking "Why
> FreeDOS?" or "Can FreeDOS do ___?" These questions are answered in
> various places on the web site. Since people keep emailed me these
> questions, I think it's fair to assume folks aren't finding the
> information they need. And with the release of FreeDOS 1.1, I'm
> getting more of these questions.
>
> I'm thinking about merging some content from
> www.freedos.org/freedos/about/ into the front page, and breaking out
> other content using a more easily-read style. But I need to keep the
> important stuff on the front page. For example, I think the developer
> news ("Latest updates") needs to stay. Also, I'm wondering if the
> "tabs" on the top banner bar really need to be there, or if they're
> just confusing.
>
> My question is WHAT content are people looking for. That's where YOU can help:
>
>
> - Why do YOU visit the FreeDOS web site? About how often do you visit
> the web site?
>
> - What information are you looking for that you ARE ABLE to find?
>
> - What information are you looking for that you CANNOT find?
>
> - Is the web site navigation confusing, or does it make sense to you?
>
> - What do YOU think needs to be on the front page?
>
>
> Please email me off-list.
>
> Thanks!
> -jh
>
> --
> Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
