Re: [Freedos-user] Feelings on lfn

[userbeitrag]

On Nov 8 2022, 17:40, Ralf Quint wrote:

On 11/8/2022 2:55 AM, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:

On Nov 8, 2022, 01:58, Ralf Quint wrote:

But I only use this feature sparingly, as there are a lot of older
software that can't handle them. And the mapping to some xyz~1.abc is
actually losing two significant characters of those 8 available for
generally usable filenames.


On Linux, you can mount a FAT filesystem with the mount option
"nonumtail", where you don't get the trailing "~1" at the end when it is
still possible, e.g. when there are no other files with the same name.


How is any Linux feature possibly helping me with running an older,
non-LFN aware program on (Free)DOS?


It won't.
If FreeDOS were to learn the same alternative way of not using the
"tail" (~1, ~2 and so on) on short file names, at least were possible,
that *could* help a little...

A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Feelings on lfn

[userbeitrag]

On Nov 8, 2022, 01:58, Ralf Quint wrote:

But I only use this feature sparingly, as there are a lot of older
software that can't handle them. And the mapping to some xyz~1.abc is
actually losing two significant characters of those 8 available for
generally usable filenames.


On Linux, you can mount a FAT filesystem with the mount option
"nonumtail", where you don't get the trailing "~1" at the end when it is
still possible, e.g. when there are no other files with the same name.

Example: "longfilename.txt" would become "LONGFILE.TXT" in 8.3, but if
you then create a second file of the name "longfile.txt", you'd have a
problem. (It would probably become "LONGFI~1.TXT", because
"LONGFILE.TXT" already existed.) Also, yet another file
"longfilenamelist.txt" would then have to become something else, e.g.
"LONGFI~2.TXT".

Anyhow, the point is, there would be other ways...


Cheers,
A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Feelings on lfn

[userbeitrag]

Am 07.11.22 um 14:07 schrieb Joseph Norton:

Hi listers:

I’m just curious about how you all feel about the use of lfn in FreeDOS (or any
real DOS).


Before you read on: FreeDOS 1.1 was the last version I actually used...
(Didn't find the time...)

For FreeDOS I think that LFN should be in the kernel. There should be a
LFN=ON or LFN=OFF CONFIG.SYS statement telling the kernel to either
stick to 8.3 or to enable LFN on FAT.

I also think that FreeDOS should natively support exFAT and UEFI.

Why?
Because if I wanted to use an old version of DOS that needs a BIOS and
that needs FAT16, I could use any MS-DOS, PC DOS or DR-DOS... (with
FAT32 support in Enhanced DR-DOS as well...)

Modern would be to at least support current hardware. For that, there's
IMHO a necessity for
1. UEFI (no more CSM since around 2020 means no more BIOS...)
2. exFAT (for large disks)
3. LFN (for real-life filenames)
4. simple SATA/ATA TRIM
on bare hardware.

I always wanted to install FreeDOS on real hardware, on my 486DX-50 to
be precise, but I didn't find the time... I own DR DOS 5.0, even have
the original box it came in, so I might just go with that instead. Also,
since this historic hardware is limited by design (504 MB HDD BIOS
limit) there's no need for a newer file system than FAT16, there's also
no need for all those drivers that are part of FreeDOS for modern
hardware. I'll also be happy with short filenames on such a retro system...

BTW, back in the days I used 4DOS, which had descript.ion support (or
rather invented it). With it, one could easily manage without LFN, as
long as 4DOS was used instead of COMMAND.COM.
Might be an idea to put native support in FreeDOS COMMAND.COM for
descript.ion as well

Just my 2¢.
A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] "The very weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option"

[userbeitrag]

On 18 May 2022, 11:09, Aitor Santamaría wrote:

Some months ago we discussed about this very precise topic.
I particularly favoured for something like this: let Linux do the job to
adapt to new hardware and FreeDOS live in a emulated 16-bit
environment that real hardware no longer provides.
I am happy that HP proved it to be feasible.


DOS isn't restricted 16-Bit, with VCPI and DPMI there are plenty of
32-Bit-DOS programs out there.

And if HP has a feasible solution with FreeDOS or not, may be in the eye
of the beholder. (They apparently say that it's not themselves, as you
cannot really use the hardware with it. Lack of drivers is just the tip
of the iceberg, with no audio to start with.)

But, yes, Linux can do that. But for me personally, when I have to use
Linux anyway, I do prefer running DOSBox...

Cheers,
A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] "The very weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option"

[userbeitrag]

On 17 May 2022, 18:21, perditi...@gmail.com wrote:

So yes there is work in the pipeline, but nothing coming soon or guaranteed
to be useful.

Jeremy


That is great to hear, as FreeDOS will otherwise be drifting away
forever on real hardware, even more as it was before (when there still
were EFI-CSMs). That HP uses Linux (or rather: has to use /something
else/) to boot FreeDOS proves exactly that.

Being able to natively use GPT is just one small initial step, but for
real hardware a necessary one I think, as this would make multi-boot a
lot easier. Just like Linux was/still is able to boot from GPT, even
when in BIOS mode.

IMHO I think a very small core operating system, one that would provide
all the necessary drivers and a complete BIOS emulation, would solve the
problem nicely, but it would have to be something better than /just any/
Linux, because that comes with a) too much additional stuff unnecessary
for the task at hand, b) issues of its own and c) if not updated
regularly: security concerns.

Something like a very small Linux kernel (LinuxBIOS/Coreboot?) with an
accelerated display driver (among other things), a BIOS emulation, some
basic hardware emulation like keyboard/mouse, some more complex hardware
emulation like an emulated SoundBlaster card -- maybe something like
DOSBox, but as a fullscreen KVM -- would be just it. FreeDOS would then
be running on the same virtual hardware, everywhere.

Thanks for your reply.
A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] "The very weird Hewlett Packard FreeDOS option"

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

Just out of curiosity...

Jim Hall wrote on 16 May 2022, 19:07:

FreeDOS pre-installed. But it's UEFI only (no BIOS) and any DOS
requires a BIOS.


Is there a way to load a BIOS from an UEFI that lacks a CSM? SeaBIOS
comes to mind... By loading something like a "BIOSEMU.EFI"
third-party/external CSM, FreeDOS would again be bootable, even on GPT
partitioning, because the protective MBR (PMBR) could be used for hybrid
partitioning...

Alternatively, FreeDOS could learn GPT natively.

If anyone knows Clover
(https://github.com/CloverHackyColor/CloverBootloader) -- this would be
the reverse: Clover loads a UEFI on a BIOS system, while FreeDOS would
require to load a BIOS on a UEFI system without a CSM.

Is there anything in the pipeline for UEFI systems?

Thanks,
A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] ECHO vs @ECHO

[userbeitrag]

On 26 Feb 2022, 02:54, Bret Johnson wrote:

I've tried creating an ECHO environment variable.  With older versions of DOS:

   SET ECHO=ECHO OFF

and with newer versions of DOS:

   SET ECHO=@ECHO OFF

then at the beginning of all batch files I put a:

   %ECHO%

That works with older versions of DOS but not newer versions.  With newer versions, it sees the "%" at the beginning of 
the line instead of the "@" and looks for an executable file called "@ECHO" instead of seeing the 
"@" as the "hide this line" character.



Anyway, any other ideas on how to resolve the ECHO/@ECHO issue?


I don't think that this can be solved -- because there are so many
different command interpreters out there, and every one acts at least a
tiny little bit differently...

I just tried "SET ECHO=@ECHO OFF" and "%ECHO%" in a batch file with 4DOS
(a replacement for the COMMAND.COM command interpreter of any given DOS)
and it worked.

How about using 4DOS as a default SHELL, i.e. set SHELL= in CONFIG.SYS
(you already rely on SET ECHO for your batch files...) and this will
solve your issue on every DOS, regardless of the exact version.

A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Old BIOS issue

[userbeitrag]

ZB wrote on 17th of October 2020:

I found some basic information here: https://www.daqarta.com/y2kure.htm
(I mean "BACKGROUND" paragraph), but when possible I'd like simply to modify
BIOS and resolve the problem "once for always"


Wow! Thanks for the link to Y2kure! This is the fix I absolutely prefer
for most of my older systems, since I deem any meddling with the BIOS
too dangerous... I just don't have the know-how to repair a possible
failure on that part.

A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] 4DOS - license issue, not included in FreeDOS 1.3?

[userbeitrag]

Am 27.03.20 um 23:29 schrieb Jim Hall:
> Yes, as I said in my other email, the 4DOS license was a mistake and I
> should not have suggested that extra term to Rex. This is unfortunate.


You might not have got the sources for 4DOS without those additional
terms, since Rex Conn was worried that freeing the sources might make
someone port it to Windows, hence there would be a competitor to
JPSofts' own products.


Long story short: it might have been the right thing to do at the time.


> I am not trying to turn FreeDOS into a "GPLDOS" though. I think that's
> mis-stating the issue. I have always said that FreeDOS should be free (open
> source). There's no point in having a "FreeDOS" if it cannot be used by
> everyone.


Since the 4DOS sources are open and can be freely used by everyone *on
FreeDOS* this statement holds true if you include 4DOS in FreeDOS. After
all, it's a FreeDOS distribution, not a BSD or Linux distribution.
Otherwise systemd would have never made it into Linux, because it cannot
be used on BSD. Free or not.


> In the past, we've included some software that was free
> ("freeware" or "no cost") but not free (open source). And a few distros
> ago, I decided future FreeDOS distributions should not include things that
> weren't "open source." We discussed that on the email lists at the time;
> this was not hidden. I've been moving FreeDOS to be as "open source" as we
> can make it.


Yes, still... 4DOSes' sources are free. Within FreeDOS at least.


> But the problem is that OSI and FSF (GNU) came long after MS-DOS. There
> were a lot of programs written for DOS (and released with source code) that
> didn't use the GNU GPL, or MIT, or BSD, or another OSI-approved or
> FSF-approved license. So we've always known we need to make exceptions for
> some programs that use other licenses.


I was very happy with FreeDOS 1.1. I don't think that everything must be
free as in open source OSI/FSF approved free.


If you want to be Debian, sure, go ahead. But keep in mind that people
use the deb-multimedia repository for exactly that reason: to get the
non-free stuff that Debian excluded. And also keep in mind that Ubuntu
is the way more successful Debian, and it includes all the "bad" stuff
as well...


In other worlds: Why not give the user the choice? I would have made
three repositories: 1-completely free (open source), 2-free, but with
limitations (open source still, maybe some closed-source stuff), and
3-binary only freeware (without the restriction of redistribution,
naturally).


People who install FreeDOS can then choose if they want to be Debian,
Debian-multimedia or Ubuntu. (Kind of...)


A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] 4DOS - license issue, not included in FreeDOS 1.3?

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 27 2020 23:53, Random Liegh wrote via Freedos-user:
> The important question isn't "why would I", the question is "can I".
>
> Any reason someone would want to port software from dos to another OS
> valid. Any reason. But in the case of 4dos they can't because of the
> license.


While that holds true, there are some things that will never be able to
cross between OSes without a substancial change to the licenses. Just
think about ZFS on Solaris and (not on) Linux. Both OSes have an open,
but incompatible license.


The short answer to the question: "no, you cannot". That's just how it
is. But it doesn't mean that the one place where it can be used has to
therefore exclude it.


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] 4DOS - license issue, not included in FreeDOS 1.3?

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 27 2020 23:34, Jim Hall wrote:
> I didn't want to put FreeDOS in the position of having a "non-free"
> package
> group like some Linux distributions. That's going to make things
> really confusing, and possibly make things harder. As I said, I think
> 4DOS can fix it by removing term 2 from the license (and possibly term
> 3) since that's what makes the 4DOS license "not open source." Rex
> would need to agree to it, since both terms have Rex's name on them.

I'll keep my finger crossed. If you need any support, like people
ligning a petition or writing mails to rc...@jpsoft.com, just tell me.

A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] 4DOS - license issue, not included in FreeDOS 1.3?

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 27 2020 23:02, Jim Hall wrote:
> Yes, the 4DOS license was my mistake and I feel really bad about it.


Don't. IMO it's an okay license. And I am forever greatful for it,
otherwise we might have never gotten the 4DOS sources like we did.


My astonishment is that something exclusively free to FreeDOS being
excluded from FreeDOS due to exactly this exclusiveness. In plain words:
4DOS is intended for use with FreeDOS, free of charge, to the users of
FreeDOS. Excluding it from a FreeDOS distribution is, in my eyes, a
mistake. It's not like this should ever be a default selection, but it
should remain an option in the installer. An optional package to include
or exclude, depending on the users choice.


Also, I suggest to apply the latest patches available for it, so it
would be 4DOS 8.00 as with the patches by Luchezar Georgiev. If someone
was to take over where he left of, that would also be great. An option
for the installer could be to either install 4DOS 7.50 by JPSoft or 4DOS
8.00 with the patches from Luchezar Georgiev.


I'd like to emphasize that this is merely my reaction to and because I
just found out that 4DOS (any version) wasn't going to be included in
the FreeDOS 1.3 distribution, which I think would be a mistake, IMHO.


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] 4DOS - license issue, not included in FreeDOS 1.3?

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 27 2020 22:21 geneb wrote:
>> learn to live with it.
>>
> Nah, you just ignore it. ;)


Exactly. But why not include it [as an option] in the FreeDOS
distribution? It's not like it's a mandatory part or a requirement to
run FreeDOS, so it's all about user choice.


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] 4DOS - license issue, not included in FreeDOS 1.3?

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 27 2020 22:13, Random Liegh wrote via Freedos-user:
> The problem is that while it's free to use and to modify on FreeDOS,
> it's restricted to FreeDOS (officially speaking; rumour has it that
> you're allowed to use it on any DOS based OS unofficially[1]).
>
> You can't (for example) port it to BSD and run it there.


True, but why would you ever want to run it on anything else than DOS?


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] 4DOS - license issue, not included in FreeDOS 1.3?

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

I just read through
http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Releases/1.3/Packages. In Section
Utilities 4DOS is marked as "no not include" for FreeDOS 1.3.

?!?!?! I thought that 4DOS was specifically free to use with FreeDOS.
Wasn't this the ONLY limitation of the license? Shouldn't it therefore
be completely free in a FreeDOS distribution, for private and commerical
use? Actually, this is the only way it was meant to be, wasn't it?

https://www.4dos.info/sources.htm
"The Software, or any portion of it, may not be compiled for use on any
operating system OTHER than FreeDOS…"

A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 27 2020 11:37, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> On 27/03/2020 11:25, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:
>> Yes, FreeDOS tends to be growing, which makes sense. For old computers,
>> original to that time, EDR-DOS might be a better choice.
>
> Or you might try some minimalistic FreeDOS distribution tailored
> specifically for the truly ancient machines.
>
> http://svarog86.sourceforge.net
>

Yes, that will be it... My last attempt was years ago, FreeDOS 1.1 was
just released and Svarog86 not yet out there (or not yet on my
radar...). I have to find the time to reassamble the PC first.


Thanks for your work!


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

On Mar 27 2020 04:57, Rugxulo wrote:
> XP is dead as a doornail (since 2014), so is even Win7 nowadays. No
> more security fixes. Those old cpus (and even modern ones) all have
> vulnerabilities and various software workarounds, plus microcode
> updates, which each have different costs (slowdowns) associated with
> them.


I know. I'm not using any of this with the internet. If I run software
of that time, off-line, I should be safe against modern attacks. I could
still get an older computer virus. You know, how they used to spread:
from floppy disk to hard drive and back...


> How many cores does the 2007 machine have? AMD has a 64-core machine
> nowadays. Hey, I'm no engineer, but newer has more cores, faster
> single-core (higher IPC), more (faster) RAM, less heat / power
> consumed, better graphics, and a billion other features (faster
> bootup??).


I think the standard back in 2007 was two. I'm not sure, I'll have to
check. It might be a single core with Hyper Treading.


> I'm not saying you can't run older hardware. Just be aware that a lot
> has changed (and improved), even if sometimes there are regressions.


The thing is that I keep those machines as a hobby. I wouldn't know what
to do with them in a production environment. Nothing probably... most
likely get rid of them. But for me they are computer history, so I have
a collection of still working machines. Sadly I'm missing real history
machines, like a NEXTstation or an 8088/8086 PC. Or an DEC Alpha
workstation. A Macintosh running System 6.


In this context it makes sense to run original software on those PCs, so
it would be PC DOS, MS-DOS, DR DOS. PTS-DOS maybe, too. GEM. GEOS. You
name it. FreeDOS would just a more modern addition, allowing e.g. data
exchange to FAT32 storage, if I can connect such "big" drives.


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

On Mar 27 2020 05:14, Rugxulo wrote:
> I only have DR-DOS 7.03, but AFAIK, DR-DOS 5 was compatible to MS-DOS
> 3.3, DR 6 was their 5, and 7 was (of course) 6 compatible (though it
> pretended to be PC-DOS, technically, unless you specifically asked
> elsewhere).
>
> So, yes, FreeDOS should be more compatible than DR-DOS 5 [sic].
>
> Although you could probably still download (non-commercial only)
> EDR-DOS (circa 2005) from the Wayback Machine. Not sure where
> "official" DR-DOS disappeared to either. I guess they don't sell it
> online (anymore??). 7.03 is from 1999 (and the one with TaskMgr,
> limited to 64 MB per task, using its own proprietary EMM386 only with
> mandatory built-in DPMI).
>
> Yes, DJGPP is still updated (e.g. GCC 9.2, BinUtils 2.34, Make 4.3)
> and thus newer than GCCs for "old Linuxes". Though you could probably
> get some Linux guru to recompile newer for your old distro, if you
> asked nicely. Not a lot of libraries for DOS anymore, but some stuff
> still works.


Yes, FreeDOS tends to be growing, which makes sense. For old computers,
original to that time, EDR-DOS might be a better choice. Digital
Research did a hell of a job making CP/M into a real good version of
DOS, with compatibility to MS-DOS i.e. PC DOS. I think DR DOS 6.0 did
that job, although DR DOS 5 (which I still own and used back than, I
even have the original box somewhere!) was my favourite. But I guess
that's just nostalgia. DR DOS 7.03 as well as EDR-DOS seems to be a very
good choice. Take some selected tools from FreeDOS (EMM386 replacement,
ATAPI drivers and such, as well as some solid applications and utils
from FreeDOS) and you will have a great DOS for an original machine.


Anyway, 8 MB RAM seems to be one of the problems, with Linux a big one,
with FreeDOS a small one. The other is disk space. As I mentioned, I
cannot get the standard FreeDOS 1.1 installation installed for that reason.


I assume that FreeDOS will also run very well on such a machine, but all
developement went into making it fit for newer machines, integrating
FAT32 and such, all of which are features not required for this original
machine.


A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 27 2020 04:49, Rugxulo wrote:
> Niklaus Wirth wrote "A Plea for Lean Software" back in 1995. He
> obviously was referring to his [quasi open source] OberonOS with
> compiler and tools. I don't think most people took his advice. He has
> had a lot of good ideas over the years, but as even he will tell you,
> it takes a lot of effort (and a genius) to get things done in such
> lowly conditions. FreeDOS probably isn't exactly what he meant
> (although we have compilers for most of his languages). His "Project
> Oberon" (revised in 2013) is still worth a look.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtlAOdJmeDI

When I saw GeckOS, I thought that anything is possible!


Spoiler-Alert: It turns out, not everything is possible after all...


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 25 2020 18:21, andrew fabbro wrote:
> Of course, you're comparing a 20-year-old distro with a 30-year-old
> "distro" of DOS :-)
>
> You get more functionality in a mid-90s Linux than a late-80s DOS.


Actually, DOS had a lot to offer. On such a machine it was quite fast,
compared to a Unix system with a blown X11 for graphics. On DOS there
were way more small and specialized little programs available, some
quite unique.


I think you cannot compare the two. Linux has its advantages, but DOS
does too. It's all about the software and the use cases. (Think about
computer games.)


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 25 2020 18:51, Jose Antonio Senna wrote:
> Today userbeit...@abwesend.de (Robinson West ?) said:
>
>> Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
>   About 1998 I did run (plod was a better description)
>  Red Hat 5.0 (kernel 2.0.32) in a 486 DX-50 with 4 MB
>  of RAM, but in text mode only. The machine and the
>  installation CD are still here. I used DR-DOS 5 and
>  loadlin to boot, because the machine could not boot
>  from CD.


Sorry, yes, old Linux version will work. I also still have a box of SuSE
Linux 4.2 laying around somewhere, and a quite old version of Debian on
a CD or DVD. Since the 486 does not have a working optical drive, I
would have to install it on my current desktop using something like
VirtualBox or QEMU, forcing it to reflect a 486, and then transfer the
installation.


I was referring to a current system. I think, not even the kernel will
boot on a system with only 8 MB memory. A 2.4 kernel might, but I am not
even sure about a 2.6 kernel.


I also have DR DOS 5 laying around, an original version. I might play
with that, but I was curious about FreeDOS, because it is somewhat more
recent in some respects than old DOSes and old Linuxes. But I might be
wrong...


A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[userbeitrag]

On Mar 25 2020 01:36, Rugxulo wrote:
> I heard that XP was designed to get to the desktop in 30 secs. Not
> necessarily responsive nor able to be used just yet, but at least it
> would show up (in optimal conditions). Of course, that was P3/P4
> (single core) era.
>
> Of course, nowadays we have SSDs and other speedups, but it still
> varies due to many factors.


Fun fact...


I have an old Intel Celeron in my cellar, a gift from a friend. It has a
CPU that is 64-bit capable, so it must be Core 2 technology. It is from
~2006/2007 or so? It originally ran Windows XP, so I tested it with
Windows 7 and 10, but it wasn't worth the effort. Too slow.

After reinstalling Windows XP SP3 with all the updates, it still felt
somewhat sluggish, not responsive without a short delay. So I left it.

Somewhat later I wanted to test an old game that required Windows 2000
or XP, but somehow wasn't working on my setup. So I performed a clean
installation of Windows XP SP2.


The fun fact: Windows XP SP2 on this 2007-machine with 4 GB RAM and HDD
is up and running as fast as Windows 10 or Linux on my 2018 Ryzen with
32 GB RAM and SSD!


A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

On Mar 25 2020 at 01:28, andrew fabbro wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:52 PM  wrote:
>
>> Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos
>> on. Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is
>> going to be pretty have for that machine. Some people aren't grabbing a
>> multi core modern computer when they use freedos. Some of us want to use
>> old computers, 386 anyone?
>> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. Modern Linux distributions,
>> don't expect them to work with less than a 1 Ghz processor with at least 1
>> gig of ram. Even the popular arm processors that run Linux, Raspberry Pi 3
>> and Pi 4, run at over 1 ghz. Freedos is an OS that works on any ancient PC
>> including dinosaurs like the veritable 8086. Just saying ;-)
>>
> Maybe you meant "venerable 8086" :-)
>
> It's true that Linux wants a 386 at a minimum, but it hardly needs 1Gz or
> 1GB or RAM.  Sure if you want a GUI but then DOS isn't going to meet your
> needs either.  You can run some Linux distros or various *BSD distros on
> tiny amounts of RAM.  Debian Wheezy only requires 64MB:
> https://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/amd64/ch03s04.html.en
>
> Likewise, OpenBSD will run on x86 with as little as 64MB of RAM.  128-256
> is more reasonable if you want to do anything outside the kernel.


Only 64 MB? My 386SX only had 2 MB. If I remember correctly, because it
might have been 4 MB.


My 486 waiting in the cellar has 8 MB. It is a true ISA machine, first
lot of 486s: Intel 80486DX-50, running the bus speed also at 50 MHz,
like the CPU. So the CPU/bus ratio was 1:1, like it had always been
before. If I remember correctly, this was the problem of getting CPU
speeds up, which is why the later introduced DX2, 66 MHz and 50 MHz, is
partly slower than the original DX @50 MHz, because the DX2 uses a 2:1
ratio on the bus. Because for I/O throughput data had to be shifted from
the CPU to the memory to the ISA IDE adapter card and back, the 50 MHz
bus was an advantage.


Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. Not even
Windows NT will work with that amount of RAM, but NT 3.x needs 16 MB, NT
4 needs 32 MB.

This is where DOS+Windows 3.x excells!


A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Can't boot Freedos from Lenovo B590

[userbeitrag]

On 17th of June, 2019, 10:00hrs, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Excerpt from userbeit...@abwesend.de: > >> Sorry, you're right off course. > 
> > Did you mean "of course" or
"off course"?
Sorry. My bad. I meant "of course"...

> I have a problem in FreeBSD with support for my ethernet and wireless > 
> connections, so far using BIOS mode. I would like to see if I can do
> better in UEFI mode. > > I'd also like to see if NetBSD runs better
under UEFI. > > But I believe it will be impossible to run FreeDOS in
UEFI mode.
Could be that you see different results in UEFI and CSM boot mode. I'd try.

Creers,
A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Can't boot Freedos from Lenovo B590

[userbeitrag]

On the 16th of June 2019, 22:28, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Excerpt from userbeit...@abwesend.de:
>
>> * UEFI replaced the BIOS.
>> * FreeDOS needs a PC with BIOS.
>> * UEFI, in its transitional period, supported emulating the BIOS, which
>> it calls CSM.
>> * CSM stands for "compatiblity support module" and is essentially the
>> BIOS emulation of UEFI.
>> * Modern operating systems are UEFI only.
> That last statement is not true!
>
> Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and Haiku can boot from BIOS, although UEFI 
> support is improving.
>
> I believe MS-Windows 10 is UEFI-only.  MacOS is designed to run specifically 
> on Apple-designed computers as opposed to a computer that can run Windows.


Sorry, you're right off course.


Though on my Linux machine the graphics works flawlessly when booted in
native UEFI mode, but has issues with screen suspend (monitor in
stand-by) - it doesn't wake-up from stand-by, monitor-wise – when booted
in CSM/BIOS mode.


Essentially the drivers seem to be well tested under UEFI but not so
well using the good old BIOS. With machines going to exclusively native
UEFI, without CSM, this will be more and more the case, leaving the BIOS
mode less stable for certain configurations. Older machines with a
native BIOS, and thus without UEFI, will most likely continue to work
with most of the hardware they support anyhow. On Linux...

What we already see is that most Linux distributions become x64=amd64
exclusively. There are ways to get x86 versions, but not as trivial as
it used to be. E.g. Ubuntu has stopped supplying a full 32-bit
installation image, only the netinst image continues to be available for
x86. For now.


Windows 10 is both BIOS and UEFI capable. It could be that the 32-Bit
version of Windows 10 is BIOS-only, but the 64-Bit version runs in BIOS
mode on my Mac, using the CSM provided with the BootCamp setup. The
difference is that with UEFI you'll have to use GPT as the partitioning
of the boot drive and with BIOS you'll have to use MBR. On a Mac this is
done using a hybrid GPT/MBR, which limits the number of partitions to 2
(actually its 4, but with one being the ESP and one being the macOS
restore partition you're left with only 2 more: one for macOS and one
for Windows). There are ways around this though, also a native Apple-EFI
installation of Windows 10 is possible.


And for macOS: there was a time when you could restore the operating
system on an MBR partition and boot it (on a Mac). Also it was possible
to use the Apple Partition Map, which was used on PowerPC-based Macs,
available until 2005. Only, it is not possible to _install_ macOS on any
other partition than GPT on an Intel-Mac. But that's off-topic... When
Mac OS X Tiger was ported to x86 it was initially possible to boot it in
BIOS mode. macOS itself is a great operating system in this regard, but
Apple put a lot of energy in closing it down, more and more with every
version, and soon no tweaking in any direction will be possible...


Cheers,

A.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Can't boot Freedos from Lenovo B590 [follow-up]

[userbeitrag]

Follow-up:

I forgot, it's important that "Secure Boot", should it be turned on, is
set to off, otherwise the CSM will be disabled automatically since it
essentially defeats the purpose.

Also, I found something that illustrates what happens when the CSM is
loaded but not "started":
https://smackerelofopinion.blogspot.com/2011/11/does-your-uefi-firmware-have-csm.html
If the CSM is enabled but the boot option is set to UEF, the CSM will
/only/ initialize all the option ROMs, including the graphics BIOS. The
option ROMs will be loaded for an operating system to use, which is what
Windows 7 relys on, even when in UEFI boot mode.

One more thing I found is this article on the VOGONS (very old games on
new systems) forum:
https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=57025
It could be that the CSM vanishes on new hardware around 2020...

I don't see a BIOS emulator for UEFI systems without CSM on the horizon.
There once was an EFI payload called BAMBIOS, but this wasn't continued
when Apple included the CSM back in 2006 when they changed from PowerPC
(with Open Firmware) to Intel x86 (with EFI) systems. Initially Apple
did not include the CSM, but with BootCamp they then did (for Windows XP
to work), so there was no more need for a BIOS emulation like BAMBIOS on
(U)EFI systems any longer...
http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/legacyboot/

Maybe in the future, once UEFI-only systems without CSM are comming,
there will again be a BIOS emulation for UEFI systems in the form of a
"BIOS" UEFI bootloader. I.e. UEFI will start a boot option called
"BIOS", which isn't an operating system but a BIOS emulation instead.
The only drawback would be that it has to be installed as a bootloader
on the primary boot device (or another boot device) like any other boot
loader... The advantage of the UEFI supplied CSM is/was that it is/was
available from within the firmware...

Cheers,
A.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] *** GMX Spamverdacht *** Can't boot Freedos from Lenovo B590

[userbeitrag]

Hello!

It should work. The reason for this is that Windows 7 needs the CSM to
be enabled anyway.
https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/ThinkPad-T400-T500-and-newer-T/Unable-to-Install-Windows-7-without-CSM-support-enabled-in-BIOS/ta-p/1038089

I looked your laptop up and it originally shipped with Windows 7 or 8,
so...
https://www.lenovo.com/in/en/laptops/lenovo/b-series/b590/

All you need to do is select CSM/BIOS-only mode in the UEFI/BIOS setup.
https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Lenovo-B-and-G-Series-Notebooks/Can-not-enter-in-BIOS-Lenovo-B590/td-p/1279403
>From this forum topic it seems like the standard keys, like F1 or F2,
don't work anymore. At least not on this specific Lenovo laptop. Were
you able to enter the UEFI/BIOS setup?

Try to find something about boot options, then choose "legacy", "BIOS"
or "CSM" or something like this, maybe it's called "BIOS first" or so.
There may also be a master option, allowing you to choose between "UEFI
(only)", "CSM/BIOS (only)" and "both".
Some possible naming conventions can be seen in this Dell article (which
otherwise focuses on a totally different subject):
https://www.dell.com/support/article/us/en/04/sln142679/how-to-enable-boot-from-dvd-option-with-uefi-boot-mode-enabled-windows-10-8-1-8

The explanation:
* UEFI replaced the BIOS.
* FreeDOS needs a PC with BIOS.
* UEFI, in its transitional period, supported emulating the BIOS, which
it calls CSM.
* CSM stands for "compatiblity support module" and is essentially the
BIOS emulation of UEFI.
* Modern operating systems are UEFI only.
* Windows 7 was a hybrid: the 64-Bit version could run from BIOS or from
UEFI, but required the UEFI to load (but not run) the CSM anyways, since
Windows 7 relied on the graphics BIOS to be accessible.
* UEFI no longer loads the graphics BIOS, it was replaced by UEFI
graphics output protocols (UGA and GOP) that need to be supported by the
operating system. Unless, off course, CSM is loaded as requested (for
Windows 7 compatibility; UEFI/BIOS setting - load, but not run), which
also loads the graphics BIOS yet still allows a UEFI boot nevertheless.
* UGA stands for "Universal Graphic Adapter", and it is the older protocol.
* GOP stands for "Graphics Output Protocol", it is newer and replaced UGA.
* Windows 8 was the first Windows to fully support UEFI.
* Future PCs and laptops will be UEFI-only without CSM at all, since the
transitional period will soon end. Some PCs don't have a CSM anymore
already. Without a CSM there is no more BIOS. Without a BIOS, DOS and
other BIOS-only operating systems cannot be used anymore.
* For FreeDOS the CSM needs not only be loaded but also run. This is
controlled by the boot option: "UEFI and BIOS, BIOS first" or similar.

If you're interested much much deeper, read this from Rod Smith:
http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-bootloaders/csm-good-bad-ugly.html

Hope this helped,
A.

On 16th of June 2019, 14:43, Marco Sulla wrote via Freedos-user:
> Hello all. I downloaded and installed FreeDos 1.2, both the iso normal and the
> USB full versions. I tried to boot them but nothing. I'm sure I can boot from
> USB and cd since I have other media that works.
>
> I have a Lenovo B590. Maybe I have to set something in the BIOS?



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Some driver updates

[userbeitrag]

On 2017-11-05 19:32, Mateusz Viste wrote:

On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 17:58:54 +0100, userbeitrag wrote:

The truth is I don't have the time nor the resources. Sorry.

For someone with no time you sure write awfully long mails. Might be time
better spent doing actual stuff.


I type fast... ;-) But, yeah, you've got a point...


svarog386 is a good idea, but I would prefer to install the official
FreeDOS distro and than add software from something like deb-multimedia
in the Debian world. Again, the keyword is trust.

I'm sorry to insist... But that ain't gonna happen. I am willing to add
non-free packages (that you would contribute) to Svarog386. I can also
provide you with pointers about how to create your own repository. I
don't think you'll get any better options here.


Like I said, ain't gonna happen either. The two reasons are 1) time and 
2) my internet connection is way too slow - it could hold only a local 
repo. Sorry.

But maybe I will add packages to svarog386 then. Let's see.


If someone was to (...) People would (...) someone would look if (...)

We're not living in wonderland, sorry. If you don't do stuff that you'd
like to see happen yourself, then it's unlikely "someone" will do it for
you. That being said, Svarog386 is already out there, has multiple
repositories and awaits only for package contributions. Note that
Svarog386 repositories can just as well be used from within a vanilla
FreeDOS system.


In that case I'll try svarog386. I've had the impression it was a 
complete distribution. Thanks for clarifying.



OT: Do you think your package manager could be installed on DR DOS as
well?

http://fdnpkg.sourceforge.net says:
"It is written by Mateusz Viste primarily for the FreeDOS™ project, but
can be used with other DOS systems as well."

Mateusz


Thanks.

Cheers,
A.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Some driver updates

[userbeitrag]

Am 2017-11-05 um 16:55 schrieb Mateusz Viste:

On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 16:48:00 +0100, userbeitrag wrote:

What I'm saying is that you might consider allowing additional software,
either in the main distribution, or - which would be even better: to
allow the addition of easy to set-up additional repositories

This has been possible for years already. FDNPKG, the current FreeDOS
packages manager supports multiple repositories. When I developed it, I
had in mind that people might start their own (free, non-free, shareware,
whatever) repositories to complement the official (FOSS only) FreeDOS
repos. So far, I am not aware of anyone having done that. Are you willing
to start your own repository? It won't be included in FreeDOS, but FreeDOS
people will be able to use it by adding a single configuration line to
their setups.

Alternatively, you might also consider submitting (non-free) packages to
svarog386.

Mateusz


Yes, I would be willing. But you wouldn't be happy with me. Let me first 
set up the 486 system with FreeDOS, a project I am working on for more 
than a year now.



The truth is I don't have the time nor the resources. Sorry.

svarog386 is a good idea, but I would prefer to install the official 
FreeDOS distro and than add software from something like deb-multimedia 
in the Debian world. Again, the keyword is trust.


How I see it, resources are quite limited. If someone was to add a 
freeware/shareware/demo repository and is backed by the developers and 
the community, the trust part is quite easy to accomplish. People would 
submit their wishes or even completed packages, someone would look if 
it's okay (no viruses or other harmful code, the original binaries used 
etc.) and it would be added to the non-free repository.


This way, everyone would be satisfied. Including those who wish to use 
Jacks stuff, as UMBPCI, XMGR and UHDD could be part of this non-free repo.


I know, this is just a theory and I'm not really contributing much at 
this time. But believe me, if I use something, I will be part of it. A 
small part, but a part. Hopefully this time will start soon. (I'm 
talking about my project to finally install FreeDOS alongside DR DOS on 
my vintage 486. I might additionally also start using FreeDOS on a P4 I 
have sitting around and waiting for something to do...)


BTW, thanks for the package manager! I didn't know who developed what, 
but a package manager is a huge leap forward for FreeDOS.


OT: Do you think your package manager could be installed on DR DOS as well?

To all the devs: thanks for your continued effort. FreeDOS is something 
worth keeping active, if only as a spare time project.
To the community: thanks for continued activity on the mailing list. I 
love to read it.


Cheers,
A.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Some driver updates

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

On 2017-11-05 00:48, Jim Hall wrote:

On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 20:09:48 +0100, userbeitrag wrote:

I'm also thinking that FreeDOS should include a not-so-free and even a
non-free section of software. The only limit should be restriction of
redistribution.


On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Mateusz Viste <mate...@nospam.viste.fr> wrote:

I'm afraid this is contrary to the FreeDOS spirit. [..]


To epxand on Mateusz a little bit:

FreeDOS exists today because it is open source software. Anyone can
fix a bug in FreeDOS, or add a new feature, or just study the source
code to see how it works.

We wouldn't have FreeDOS in 2017 if we had made it all closed source.
If everything was closed source, then anytime a new user wanted to
make a program do something extra, they'd have to rewrite the entire
thing. That doesn't help anyone.

While we recognize that the vast majority of people use FreeDOS to run
classic/legacy DOS programs, which are themselves closed source, we
want to make sure that the FreeDOS kernel and all the things that make
it "FreeDOS" remain Free / open source software. We have no interest
in bundling "non-free" software in FreeDOS.


Jim


I understand that the development of FreeDOS needs to be free as in 
freedom as in open source. It makes sense.


BUT I also understand that sometimes open source is not possible. I come 
from Linux and I use Debian. It is a the distribution devoted to freedom 
and open source, but it doesn't just work. On many systems it needs a 
lot of help to even get going in the first place.


What I'm saying is that you might consider allowing additional software, 
either in the main distribution, or - which would be even better: to 
allow the addition of easy to set-up additional repositories, so that 
users can easily get freeware that is closed source, or even shareware. 
Anything that has a license allowing redistribution.
This way the main FreeDOS distribution stays open and free (as in 
freedom), while allowing the user to add freeware/shareware etc. by 
utilizing the main free distribution.


Thus it is not about FreeDOS - it is about a distribution of software. 
And about a chain of trust. I do trust the FreeDOS distribution, but an 
alternate distribution? Who makes it? What else is different in the 
distribution? Allowing to use the official FreeDOS and adding certain 
software from a easy to use repostory makes it easier to verify the 
source, since now I only have to check the additional stuff, not the 
whole distribution for trustworthyness.


I also use Gentoo Linux. On Gentoo there are some ebuilds (the package 
files for the package manager, which is called portage) that will 
install even proprietory software, keeping it a part of the Gentoo 
package system.


From a users point of view this is encouraged and highly appreciated.

Again, I completely get it that the main FreeDOS operating system and 
system software such as drivers and utilities should be free and open.


Cheers,
A.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Some driver updates

[userbeitrag]

On 2017-11-05 01:48, geneb wrote:

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:


Isn't that exactly what JPSoftware did with 4DOS?
And speaking of it, 4DOS isn't free - it is specifically restricted 
to FreeDOS, which makes it non-free.


Which is basically nonsense because the person that released the 
software specifically states that, "I don't have any problems with 
people using it on those OS's (although I'd be surprised if there was 
a lot of MS-DOS or PC-DOS action left). That license was written by 
the FreeDOS people . it was probably worded that way because it's 
impossible to list every possible variation of the DOS OS's."


g.

Agreed. So this makes it implicit that you can use 4DOS on any other DOS 
(or DOS emulator/environment) you like. Still, the license is what 
probably holds in court. Not that anyone would be intrerested


Cheers,
A.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Some driver updates

[userbeitrag]

On 2017-11-04 21:47, Eric Auer wrote:

Hi Rugxulo,

if umbpci and xmgr run more stable than jemm386, in particular
regarding umb range autodetection, then it is no surprise that
Dimitris is happy about those :-) And you remember how long
ago Japheth stopped maintenance and support for jemm386 and
how hard it is to improve memory drivers (see broken Pemberton
patch for HIMEMX...) Of course it would still be very nice to
have simultaneously nice AND open source drivers...

Cheers, Eric


It doesn't help if his license specifically excludes FreeDOS. Keeping 
the older version is the way to go then. IMHO key is to include all 
possibilities and have them documented on FreeDOS installation, so the 
user can try out all those possibilities. The one that is stable will be 
kept - when it is unstable, the user has to switch to another EMM setup.


Cheers,
A.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Some driver updates

[userbeitrag]

On 2017-11-04 21:23, Ralf Quint wrote:

On 11/4/2017 12:06 PM, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:

I did install a couple of software too. What good is DOS without
programs, right? But even deselecting the compilers and the GUI it
didn't fit. I wanted to select only really relevant packages next, but
work called and I had to stop the project for the time. As soon as I
find the time, I will continue to try.

Yes, I know that DOS fits a floppy! That DOS isn't of any use though -
you need at least one program.
Also, a lot of what the FreeDOS distribution offers are utilities,
meaning: they also don't do anything for you except if you have other
data/programs. Take ZIP as an example: without something to ZIP it's
just sitting there waiting. No one would say: "I have to work with ZIP
today to get my work done" or "I want to play with ZIP the whole day,
because it's so much fun".

Sorry for being sarcastic. It's my nature. I appologize in advance.

So much for the story of a total fail...

Well, how small was that hard drive that you tried? Of course, if you
select "everything plus the kitchen sink", you can expect to fill up a
(very) small hard drive. But this is not a failure of installing
FreeDOS, it is a failure to apply common sense. And a GUI is not part of
DOS, and why would you need ALL compilers? (which ones did you want to use?)

Your story is a bit like buying a Fiat 500 and than complain that you
can't fit in a couple tons of bricks...

Ralf


Hi Ralf!

Don't take all this so serious. Please. I simply was caught by surprise 
that the FreeDOS distribution was so big. And you know how it is, you 
install something and when it asks you "Do you want this?" you say, 
"Okay, why not?!?"


The GUI I'm talking about is OpenGEM. I always wanted to try out GEM, so 
I figured I'd include it.


The compilers I didn't even select. I *de*selected them.

The HDD actually isn't that small: it's a 512 MB Transcend 40-pin IDE 
flash module. I partitioned it so that it would hold not only a FreeDOS 
partition, but also a DR DOS 5.0 partition and a Linux partition.


I remembered my first DOS machine had a 40 MB HDD. So I partitioned too 
small. The Linux would only be an experiment, the DR DOS would be a 
restoration of the original operating system and the FreeDOS would be an 
experiment to see how it works on real hardware.


Well, I don't remember the exact partitioning, but I think that 40 MB 
for each DOS and the rest for Linux was what I could have done. And I 
also repartitioned for a bigger FreeDOS, but then work came along.


To take your car example: I got an SUV alright, but I invited too many 
friends to bring along.


I assume the full 512 MB will surely be enough for FreeDOS. But I 
definitely also want to install DR DOS. I think I might drop Linux...


BTW, the PC is vintage and I think that 512 MB is as much as I can get 
out of the BIOS setup anyhow. I had to manually calculate C/H/S, which 
is 993/16/63.


Also, the CMOS battery is dead, so for the time being I have to manually 
enter these values everytime I try to boot this vintage PC. I don't have 
access to a working 3.5 inch floppy right now and I also cannot add a 
CD-ROM drive. Also, when I installed DOS on a LBA-capable system, it 
didn't boot on the 486 PC. I think this is a LBA versus C/H/S issue.


But remember, this was just a hobby that I tried to get working during 
Christmas vacation time. No time now. Though I'm planning to pick up at 
some point.



Hope that explains it. Don't get to angry with me. Thanks.
A.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] ZANSI.SYS

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

I tried to find ZANSI.SYS but found that it is nowerdays really hard to 
get... Finally I found it there:

https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/net/user/tytso/msdos/screen/

So, ZANSI Version 1.2 is from Thomas Hanlin III, who used NANSI 2.2 from 
Daniel Kegel as a basis. The source code is included. It is from 1987.


I remember that I preferred ZANSI.SYS over NANSI.SYS and all other ANSI 
drivers, because ZANSI was more light-weight i.e. it used as little RAM 
as possible while at the same time being the fastest ANSI driver out 
there (at that time). Sure, not all functions from NANSI are included, 
but what I was after was the accellerated text output only.


So IF FreeDOS was ment not only for modern systems but also for real 
retro hardware, I think it may be of interest to also include the option 
to choose ZANSI over NANSI.


Just my 2¢.

Cheers,
A.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Some driver updates

[userbeitrag]

Hello!

On 2017-11-04 16:02, Dale E Sterner wrote:

I don't believe that freedos should be restricted to only
open software but should promote anything that
improves dos, like QV which is closed but great
dos software. DOS is on the edge of extinction and
needs all the help it can get. Owner of closed softwre
could be asked to include the source in their wills.


cheers
DS


Isn't that exactly what JPSoftware did with 4DOS?
And speaking of it, 4DOS isn't free - it is specifically restricted to 
FreeDOS, which makes it non-free.


I'm also thinking that FreeDOS should include a not-so-free and even a 
non-free section of software. The only limit should be restriction of 
redistribution.


In the good old days DOS used to be all about freeware, shareware, 
proprietory stuff and open source programs (at lot of them came from 
Linux at that time...)


Cheers,
A.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Some driver updates

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

On 2017-11-04 18:02, Ralf Quint wrote:

On 11/4/2017 4:58 AM, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:

I too have a couple of old 486 systems and recently also two 286
laptops (yeah!) but I wasn't yet able to install FreeDOS on them. The
first reason being that my first project, a desktop 486, doesn't have
a CD-ROM drive and, natually, no USB either. The only way to get
FreeDOS on the HDD was to place it into a different system (a P4) and
install it there. The bad news: this very HDD was too small for
FreeDOS. So at that point I did give up, mostly due to my real life
job which doesn't give me enough spare time to continue the project,
at least for now.

Harddrive too small for FreeDOS? Sorry, but the smallest hard drive I
ever owned and used in DOS was 20MB and that is enough to install
FreeDOS 10 time over...
You can run FreeDOS off a 1.2/1.44MB floppy disk drive!

Sorry but that story doesn't hold up . And it doesn't have anything to
do with the subject of this unfortunate thread...


I did install a couple of software too. What good is DOS without 
programs, right? But even deselecting the compilers and the GUI it 
didn't fit. I wanted to select only really relevant packages next, but 
work called and I had to stop the project for the time. As soon as I 
find the time, I will continue to try.


Yes, I know that DOS fits a floppy! That DOS isn't of any use though - 
you need at least one program.
Also, a lot of what the FreeDOS distribution offers are utilities, 
meaning: they also don't do anything for you except if you have other 
data/programs. Take ZIP as an example: without something to ZIP it's 
just sitting there waiting. No one would say: "I have to work with ZIP 
today to get my work done" or "I want to play with ZIP the whole day, 
because it's so much fun".


Sorry for being sarcastic. It's my nature. I appologize in advance.

So much for the story of a total fail...

Cheers,
A.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Some driver updates

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

On 2017-11-04, 11:41, Dimitris Zilaskos wrote:

Hi,

There some bad heated past definitely which hopefully will be cooled down by
time but ultimately like I said, there is a number of dos era systems that
people like myself may want to use with FreeDOS and Jack's drivers are an option
to do that when available for use - in my case for example when the reported
issues with the supplied memory managers were not likely to be resolved any time
soon. So users such as myself may want to have as many options to get these old
dos era beasts working available to them. I was particularly happy when I was
able to use my systems with FreeDOS in ways I never had before and I received
extensive help from the community especially Jack, Eric as well as others so
this whole ordeal is holding some of my retro projects back.


I too have a couple of old 486 systems and recently also two 286 laptops 
(yeah!) but I wasn't yet able to install FreeDOS on them. The first 
reason being that my first project, a desktop 486, doesn't have a CD-ROM 
drive and, natually, no USB either. The only way to get FreeDOS on the 
HDD was to place it into a different system (a P4) and install it there. 
The bad news: this very HDD was too small for FreeDOS. So at that point 
I did give up, mostly due to my real life job which doesn't give me 
enough spare time to continue the project, at least for now.


My question to you is:
Why not use real retro software on real retro systems? I plan to install 
DR DOS 5.0, which I still have a legal copy of. I also plan to get 
abandonware of that time, which will not be a problem for a private 
person. Yes, it could be called "stealing", but it really is not, since 
those programs are no longer sold. Abandonware is clealy not trying to 
ruin businesses, but when there is no chance to give them money for it, 
then there is no damage. And the spirit is specifically to preserve old 
software, not to steal it.


Memory managers like Quarterdeck EMM (QEMM) and 386MAX come to mind. 
They *could* be available from abandonware sites, but I didn't check.


It may be possible to use FreeDOS with those memory managers. If they do 
their job properly, you should use them.


Cheers,
A.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] New FreeDOSers Monthly Reminder

[userbeitrag]

Yes, please! At most, a yearly reminder would make sense. A monthly 
reminder just annoys people.


A.

Am 2017-11-01 um 12:04 schrieb Tom Ehlert:

Hallo Herr John Price,

can we please have this monthly remainder stopped?

it is just unnecessary

Tom


am Mittwoch, 1. November 2017 um 07:00 schrieben Sie:



MONTHLY REMINDER FOR THE FREEDOS MAILING LISTS
Hello, and welcome to the FreeDOS mailing list!
If you have been a list member for some time, then you can skip this
as you should be familiar with the rules by now.
--
The FreeDOS Project aims to create a free, complete implementation of
classic DOS. DOS is still a popular system, and plenty of people use
FreeDOS to play classic DOS games, run legacy software, and support
embedded systems. For more information about FreeDOS, visit:
   http://www.freedos.org/



We have only a few rules for posting to the FreeDOS mailing lists:
1. Don't swear. We don't want this mailing list to become what Usenet
turned into.
2. Keep posts on-topic. Remember, we set up this mailing list to
discuss FreeDOS issues.
3. No flame wars. If you feel really strongly against what someone has
said, send a reply off-list.



Some suggestions:
** Please send only plain text email messages, rather than messages
formatted in HTML. Plain text makes it easier for everyone to read
your posts. Above all, HTML email is particularly difficult for
some screen readers.
** When replying to messages, please quote just the bit of email you
are replying to. Don't copy the whole conversation if you don't
need to.



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] boot floppy disk image too big for a disk

[userbeitrag]

On 2017-03-24 03:46, Dennis Fenton wrote:
> Read what I wrote. I burned the iso to a CD. I also downloaded the floppy 
> img. It doesn't fit!
> So my first interaction on this forum is from someone who treats me like a 
> dummy. Perhaps another reason to say to Hell with FreeDOS.

This is not possible. The FLOPPY.img contained in 
http://www.freedos.org/download/download/FD12FLOPPY.zip is exactly 
1474560 bytes big, which is the size of a 1.44 MB floppy disk.

If this image doesn't fit, no 1.44 MB image will fit on your floppy. In 
other words: the image is the right size and something else must be wrong.

And there is no need to be rude. "Pilot error" is correct in this case, 
and is meant to make you think - maybe it is you after all who is wrong. 
To make it absolutely clear: I can confirm that this image WILL FIT on 
any 1.44 MB floppy drive. I cannot confirm if it will actually boot (I 
didn't test this... yet... or not that I recall at the moment) BUT it is 
the right size. Thus it must be you who is wrong with the "doesn't fit" 
statement.

Even so, I understand very much that installing FreeDOS is not trivial 
since you need to account for so many different hardware cases. And it 
is very often just a driver that is missing; the original - long lost - 
driver from the driver disk supplied with the original hardware (IDE, 
SCSI, CDROM, ...) for DOS, OS/2 and Windows 3.1/NT 3.x... those were the 
days...

Back then you would get the *then new* hardware with the driver on 
floppy. Trying to install FreeDOS now, about two decades later, makes it 
hard to get all the driver stuff (who preserves such things?) and 
configurations right (jumpers, C/H/S in the BIOS etc. - who preserves 
manuals and quick installation guides?).


Good luck! I hope you will figure it out!
(As I hope to find the time to make my 486 run FreeDOS eventually... I 
didn't find the time since after the New Years holidays...)


Userbeitrag.


The answer from Dennis is correct:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Dennis Fenton <dwf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After some research I decided FreeDOS would be a good replacement for
>> MS-DOS 6.22 on an old 486 I'm playing with.
>> I downloaded and burned to CD the iso. I also downloaded the boot
>> floppy disk image because the old 486 will not boot from the external
>> SCSI CD drive.
>> To my dismay I found that the boot disk image is too big to fit on a
>> 1.44 floppy.
> The ISO image isn't *intended* to fit on a floppy. It expects to be
> installed on a CDROM.
>
> If you have a machine that *can't* boot form CD and must boot from
> floppy, there's a boot floppy zip file you can extract to floppy to
> boot from. That assumes the rest of the distribution will be on a CD
> you can access from FreeDOS once you've booted from the floppy. See
> the Boot Floppy option under "How to install FreeDOS 1.2 »"
>
> See http://www.freedos.org/download/
>
>> This makes me question the decision to switch. How in the world can an
>> organization dedicated to promoting this better version of DOS get it
>> wrong when it comes to the size of a disk image?
>> Do you have a fix for this?
> The problem is pilot error. Please read the applicable instructions
> on the download page.
> __
> Dennis


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] OT: USB floppy cannot read medium on modern PC and Linux.

[userbeitrag]

On 2017-01-02 02:53, dmccunney wrote:
> Take a variable out of the equation. Start with a fresh, new floppy
> disk.  Don't try to reuse an ancient one that may be failing due to
> age.
>
> Floppies are still made and should be findable.

Will do. Takes time.

Userbeitrag.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] OT: USB floppy cannot read medium on modern PC and Linux.

[userbeitrag]

On 2017-01-01 22:27, dmccunney wrote:
>> I don't really expect help here. It is just a message to get the
>> understand for why I cannot load FreeDOS onto a floppy at this time.
> With proper knowledge, I suspect you could.

I know that this USB floppy drive has worked. I was successfully reading 
a disk that I needed an image of under Linux. But I also know that a 
disk, that had worked in another PC with a classic floppy drive 
(connected to the FD port on the motherboard), had the same errors using 
the USB floppy drive.

I don't know. It's prooven that it does work -- sometimes. It's also 
prooven that some disks give access errors all the way unter Linux. 
Honestly, I have no idea.

Userbeitrag.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Preload and start installer from installation target?

[userbeitrag]

Hello again!
I just wanted to report back for all of you who helped me and gave great 
inputs.

Thanks for the CHS/LBA info.
This is an IDE Flash module that goes directly into the MBs slot. It 
doesn't allow to connect another device beside it, so it also doesn't 
have a master/slave jumper.

It has a capacity of 512 MB. I tested it on another PC, from around 
2000, which auto-detected it as C/H/S 993/16/63 (no boot-up as it was 
still empty at that time, I just did the BIOS auto-detection).


On the 486 I've put that in for the IDE device as custom type 82. The 
other values, LZ and WP, I left at 0. I assume for a flash drive they 
are simply not important.

But it doesn't boot. It halts with the error message: "partition 
signature != 55AA"

I've personally checked: all partitions and the MBR have that signature.

I managed to find an old external USB HDD which has an IDE interface 
inside, and I connected the flash module to my regular PC.

 > # dmesg | tail
 > [23705.522176] scsi 7:0:0:0: Direct-Access TRANSCEN 
D PQ: 0 ANSI: 0
 > [23705.522746] sd 7:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg3 type 0
 > [23705.523265] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] 1000944 512-byte logical blocks: 
(512 MB/489 MiB)
 > [23705.524141] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off
 > [23705.524145] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: 27 00 00 00
 > [23705.525012] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] No Caching mode page found
 > [23705.525018] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Assuming drive cache: write through
 > [23705.528556]  sdc: sdc1 sdc2 sdc3
 > [23705.531653] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk

 > # parted /dev/sdc print
 > Model: TRANSCEN D (scsi)
 > Disk /dev/sdc: 512MB
 > Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
 > Partition Table: msdos
 > Disk Flags:
 >
 > Number  Start   End SizeType File system  Flags
 >  1  32,3kB  52,7MB  52,7MB  primary
 >  2  52,7MB  74,0MB  21,3MB  primary
 >  3  74,0MB  480MB   406MB   primary  fat16boot

As you can see, the third primary partition is for FreeDOS. I've decided 
to create a 50 MB partition for DR DOS and a 20 MB partition for MS-DOS 
or any other DOS I want to test (like PC DOS, PTS-DOS).

The third partition has been made bootable with "format c: /s /q". I've 
also rewritten the MBR using "fdisk /mbr". All partitions are formated. 
The first two partitions are otherwise empty.

I've also used Linux's dd (e.g. "dd if=/dev/sdc1 bs=512 count=1 
of=bootsec1.bin") to check if the boot signature 55AA is present on all 
partitions + on the MBR and it is.


Thinking logically: If the BIOS wouldn't check, it should boot. The MBR 
code should find the active partition #3 and chainload the bootsector. 
This should include the bootcode for FreeDOS, since I've formated it 
with /s and the system files are on the parition.
I hate it when a BIOS checks stuff that it rather shouldn't care about!

Any other error message and it could have been FreeDOS, but I am sure 
this one if from the BIOS _before_ it executes the MBR boot code.



Maybe the next time I will try only one partition first... Anyway: 
again, I've come to a halt for now.

I appreciated your help.
Happy 2017.
Userbeitrag.


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] HIMEMX.EXE - Invalid Opcode

[userbeitrag]

I tried to boot FreeDOS 1.2 on my 2005 PC, specs:

* BIOS

* Intel 945P chipset

* Pentium D-950 (64-bit capable)

* 2.5 GB DDR2 RAM

* SATA in "Compatible Mode" as P-ATA:

** Primary IDE Master: IOMEGA ZIP 250

** Primary IDE Slave: DVD-RW

* PATA from additional controller chip

** TRANSCEND IDE FLASH MODULE


It is the FD12CD.ISO image, booted from CD-R. I chose "Install" and used 
F8 to diagnose the problem.

DEVICE=\FDSetup\BIN\HIMEMX.EXE stalls the system. It infinitely repeads:

Invalid Opcode at 0FAE 1068 0046 0001 0002  0200   0183  
4200 0001


Skipping HIMEMX.EXE lets me continue with installation.


Just reporting...

Userbeitrag.


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Preload and start installer from installation target?

[userbeitrag]

Jerome and Louis, thanks!

>> 1) Does the installer check the hardware and make choices? If so, this
>> would be totally wrong since I will be preloading it on a very different PC.
> Yes a little. Only to compensate for the different quirks in the common vm 
> platforms.
> So, if you install to real hardware then stick the drive in the old machine, 
> you will be fine.
So, this means that my newer PC will make no difference?
The PC I will install on, is a Pentium-D, has >2 GHz and >3GB RAM. This 
drive is actually an IDE flash drive that is connected directly to the 
mainboards ATA connector. It all is far more modern than the 486 PC with 
50 MHz and 8 MB RAM.


>> 2) Can I install something like the installation environment itself?
> Yes.
>
> If you have a spare drive laying around, you can just copy the intire 
> filesystem from one of the USB images to the root of that drive. Boot your 
> old Dos, switch to drive D: and run setup.bat
>
> This is how the DOSBox install works. Albeit it detects DOSBox and customized 
> the install process somewhat.

Thanks. So my plan is now to make two partitions, one for FreeDOS and 
one for the unmodified installer that I will simply copy there.

The second partition will eventually become a data+programs partition 
for games and such.

Most likely I will eventually also install DR DOS, so I will create a 
third partition for later use.

> 1) Does the installer check the hardware and make choices? If so, this
> would be totally wrong since I will be preloading it on a very different PC.

Yes a little. Only to compensate for the different quirks in the common vm 
platforms.
So, if you install to real hardware then stick the drive in the old machine, 
you will be fine.


> One other thing you can try with VirtualBox (and Bochs, and QEMU,
> probably VMware Player) is use device pass through and install
> directly to the drive there using the VM (VirtualBox calls it raw
> access)[0][1]. The machine running the VM will likely be faster than
> your 486 and so the install should be faster. The only issue could be
> that FreeDOS FDISK detects LBA BIOS and put thats in boot sector
> partition type but I believe the kernel should be correctly handle
> that case and adjust its drive access routines accordingly when you
> replace the drive back in your 486.

I thought about that as well, but I really think that would be even 
worse than the other real PC I could use. I used direct access to 
physical drives and partitions, so I know the procedure.


Anyway, thanks very much for your help!
userbeitrag.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Preload and start installer from installation target?

[userbeitrag]

On 2016-12-30 23:31, Jose Antonio Senna wrote:
>   Some (maybe silly) remarks:
>   
>   -Is the HD blank or do you already have some O/S working
>in that PC ?

It is still blank.

>   -If you have say, MSDOS, on the PC do you want to keep it
>and make a dual-boot PC ?

I will eventually install DR DOS on a second partition. I hope I will be 
able to get a bootloader running that allows a selection. GRUB4DOS maybe?
>   - DOS has been designed to boot from removable media, so
>   it does not save HW info in the kernel.

Yes, but doesn't a good installer configure something like XMS memory 
and HIMEM.SYS and CD-ROM ATAPI.SYS and stuff like that? This will go 
into the CONFIG.SYS and some stuff into AUTOEXEC.BAT, but this will all 
be wrong on another PC, wouldn't it?

>Just write bare minimum CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files
>   and edit them to install specific drivers and TSRs after
>   the HD is on the target PC.

Yes, that is the though: I will partition 1) DR DOS, 2) FreeDOS and 3) 
data+programs. Then I will install a bre minimum on the FreeDOS 
partition, so it will be able to boot on the 486-PC. I will copy the 
installation stuff from the USB image 1:1 to the third partition. I 
should then be able to start the installer on the 486-PC from that 
partition.


Thank you very much,
userbeitrag.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Preload and start installer from installation target?

[userbeitrag]

Hello!

On 2016-12-30 18:39, Rugxulo wrote:
>   > I cannot easily create a 3.5 inch boot floppy to use it in
>   > the 486-PC.
>
> Is the drive itself broken or you don't have a working floppy disk or ...?

I tried old floppy disks in a USB FDD that I acquired, but it doesn't 
work. I don't know if the floppy drive or the floppies are broken.

Anyway, I would prefer another solution: the HDD works in this more 
modern PC, so I really think that I should install it from USB or CD-ROM 
there and then transfer the HDD to the 486-PC.

Thanks,
userbeitrag.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] Preload and start installer from installation target?

[userbeitrag]

Hi, fellow FreeDOS users! I need your help.


I have an original Intel 80486 with 50 MHz that I want to try FreeDOS 
on. I still haven't found the time so far an my first attempt came to an 
early halt because I couldn't get an installation media to start on this 
machine.


*) The 486-PC doesn't have a CD-ROM drive.

*) The 486-PC doesn't have USB.

*) I cannot easily create a 3.5 inch boot floppy to use it in the 486-PC.


What I can do thou is plug the IDE HDD into another PC and pre-load 
FreeDOS there. Then, connecting the IDE HDD inside the 486-PC, FreeDOS 
should start.


The Question:

1) Does the installer check the hardware and make choices? If so, this 
would be totally wrong since I will be preloading it on a very different PC.

2) Can I install something like the installation environment itself?

3) The outcome should be that it boots on the 486-PC and starts the 
installer from there, to create all necessary CONFIG.SYS and 
AUTOEXEC.BAT entries and to select the software to be installed. The 
installer files may remain as capacity is not a factor on this HDD anyhow.


Has this been done before? And how would I do it?

Help highly appreciated!


Thanks,

userbeitrag.


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Installation on a ThinkPad 340?

[userbeitrag]

Hi Tom!

As I understand it you cannot really make any use of initialized sound 
hardware in DOS except for a few -- very few -- programs that are aware 
of this very specific sound hardware.

You may have noticed that /back in the old days/ every program/game had 
to be configured for the specific sound card in order to use it. Even 
within a family of sound cards there were incompatibilities. For 
example, games that ware written for Sound Blaster 1.0 (aka Game 
Blaster) und Sound Blaster 2.0 were not able to produce SoundBlaster 
sound on a more modern Sound Blaster Pro or Sound Blaster 16.

The reason for this is very simple: there is no standardized sound API 
on DOS. So every sound card and driver created its own API and every 
application has to be written to support this very sound card (series).

The only solution for /modern DOS/ would be to write an emulation for a 
well supported sound card for older programs and games. That would be, 
say, a SB16 emulation driver for AC97 and HD-Audio on-board sound cards. 
So every DOS program/game would see the well supported SB16 and -- if 
supported by this very program or game -- would be able to use it 
through the emulation. I think this is how DOSBox does support sound.

If you do find a practical solution though -- I would be interested too!

Cheers,
userbeitrag


On 2016-12-18 23:58, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Do such programs to init the sound hardware work with all sound hardware?
> I have on-motherboard Intel high-definition audio and remember reading on 
> this emailing list that it was not supported in any DOS.
>
> I get sound in FreeBSD and NetBSD.
>
> Tom

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Cannot boot FreeDOS on 8086-based IBM PS/2 -- any ideas?

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

Isnt't FreeDOS dependant on 80286+? Not sure, but pure 8086 isn't very 
easy to handle these days. Did you try to boot without any device 
drivers at all?

On original 8086 hardware you should try an old version of MS-DOS or DR 
DOS. That's what I would do.

Good luck!
userbeitrag

--
The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
Reconnect with the command line and become more productive. 
Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
http://sdm.link/telerik
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Mounting VirtualBox FreeDOS images in Windows

[userbeitrag]

On 2016-07-10 03:51, Rugxulo wrote:
> But Windows doesn't come with any emulator / hypervisor. Sure, some
> enterprise-y editions of Win7 had VPC and "XP Mode", but end users
> didn't get that. (But Win8 never cared for offering that further,
> AFAIK.) Also, last I heard, Hyper-V was Win8 64-bit Pro VT-X only. So
> that too is out of reach for normal consumers.
>
> What I prefer these days is (third-party) VBox and QEMU / KVM.
> Admittedly usually using Windows host, but sometimes I try under Linux
> too.

VirtualPC version 2004 and 2007 are still freely available. I didn't 
test if those versions work under Windows 7, 8/8.1 or 10 though, but if 
they do this would be great news.

Virtual PC 2004 SP1:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-US/download/details.aspx?id=3243

Virtual PC 2007 SP1:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-US/download/details.aspx?id=24439

Cheers,
userbeitrag

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Games

[userbeitrag]

Original message from Corbin Davenport, 2016-06-21 00:38:
> Oh wow, that's some memories. I remember firing up Virtual PC for Mac on my 
> old
> iMac G4 to run some Windows software. The DOS additions were great for running
> DOS games too.

Yes, I also use(d) Virtual PC on the Mac. The Windows versions 2004 and 
2007 are the only ones that are free thou, as VPC 6 and 7 (for the Mac) 
could only be purchased. Only version 2004 includes the guest additions 
for DOS and OS/2. In VPC 2007 and Windows Virtual PC on Windows 7 the 
original DOS Additions may be used anyhow.


BTW, I fear that VirtualBox does not have guest additions, and VMware 
Tools are also not available for DOS.


Cheers,
userbeitrag

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Games

[userbeitrag]

I just want to point out, that the DOS Additions for Virtual PC 2004 SP1 
can be downloaded free of charge:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-US/download/details.aspx?id=3243

This will let you download 
"https://download.microsoft.com/download/2/5/3/253e22d9-b8a4-4219-9596-ee30c83699bf/Virtual
 
PC 2004 SP1.zip" which needs to be unzipped. Then unpack "Microsoft 
Virtual PC 2004 MSDN.msi" which includes "product.cab", which again 
needs to be unpacked. Finally, the DOS Additions are in the file 
"DOSAdditions", which is a standard 1.44 MB floppy image.

The .zip also includes a file called "VPC 2004 EULA.rtf", the Virtual PC 
2004 End Users License Agreement. It also states that Re-distribution is 
allowed. Only, the package must be included as a whole and the EULA must 
be presented to the user.


[X] Virtual PC
[ ] VirtualBox
[ ] VMware
[ ] QEMU


One checked, three remaining...


Cheers,
userbeitrag

--
Attend Shape: An AT Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Games

[userbeitrag]

Why?
Every emulator or VM I know about will quickly install any operating 
system from a virtual CD-ROM. So if you just assign the FreeDOS-ISO as 
the virtual ATAPI-CDROM you will very easily install it to the virtual 
Hard Disk Drive, which will be either .VHD, .VHDX (Virtual PC and 
Hyper-V), .VMDK (VMware), .QCOW (QEMU) or .VDI (VirtualBox). Or any 
other format.

A prepared installation will not help alot, aside from you not being 
completely aware, which installation was used (full installation, 
partial installation, which packages).

Also, for each emulator or VM you will require different hardware 
drivers (for the virtual hardware) and integration drivers (for guest 
integration).

Therefor I would suggest to better add an installation package for 
FreeDOS as a guest operating system under various emulators and VMs. A 
user could then just install FreeDOS and select "guest drivers and 
tools" as an additional package, which would then ask "a) Virtual PC, b) 
Hyper-V, c) VMware, d) VirtualBox, e) QEMU" and install+setup the 
required stuff for you.


I write this because this is my experience. Installing an OS on a 
virtual PC is easy, getting the drivers set up sometimes is hard work, 
because you have to find those drivers first. Including them as an 
installation package would be sufficiently easy for uses IMHO. Just my 2¢.

Cheers,
userbeitrag


Original message from Don Flowers, 2016-06-20 20:45:
> That would be awesome!
>
> It seems that this would be an alternative to vDOS?
> https://www.vdos.info/
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/vdos/
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org
> <mailto:jh...@freedos.org>> wrote:
>
>  Jim Hall wrote:
>  >>> I'm building the new website. I'll update the notice to encourage new
>  >>> users to install FreeDOS in a virtual machine.
>
>  Tom Ehlert wrote:
>  >> any reason why we don't provide ready to run virtual machines as .VHD
>  >> images?
>
>  Jim Hall wrote:
>  >> Hmm... I don't know why we haven't. I don't know anything about VHD
>  >> though. Is that a standard virtual disk image that any PC
>  >> emulator/virtual machine can read? Can free/open source software
>  >> virtual machines read these (or create them)?
>
>  On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Tom Ehlert <t...@drivesnapshot.de
>  <mailto:t...@drivesnapshot.de>> wrote:
>  >
>  > .VHD is a fairly generic virtual *disk* format, and most virtual
>  > machines providers should be able to read them.
>  >
>  > a tiny bit more specialized are the virtual machine configuration
>  > files, but we should be able to provide multiple formats, for Virtual
>  > Box, DosBox, HyperV, ...
>  >
>  > still no rocket science, and no risk to damage user data.
>
>
>  Thanks for the pointer. I'll see if I can output a VHD from QEMU. If I
>  can, I'll post a default install of FreeDOS 1.1 to our ibiblio archive
>  and link to it. I'll do the same when 1.2 is out.
>
>  Reference:
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHD_(file_format)
>  "VHD (Virtual Hard Disk) is a file format which represents a virtual
>  hard disk drive (HDD). It may contain what is found on a physical HDD,
>  such as disk partitions and a file system, which in turn can contain
>  files and folders. It is typically used as the hard disk of a virtual
>  machine. The format was created by Connectix for their Virtual PC
>  product, known as Microsoft Virtual PC since Microsoft acquired
>  Connectix in 2003. Since June 2005, Microsoft has made the VHD Image
>  Format Specification available to third parties under the Microsoft
>  Open Specification Promise."


--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports. http://sdm.link/zohomanageengine
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Games

[userbeitrag]

Original message from Eric Auer, 2016-06-20 19:47:
> Hi Herr or Frau Beitrag!
>
>> I wonder if it was possible to include the guest integration drivers for
>> Virtual PC, VirtualBox, QEMU (are there any?), Hyper-V in a provided VHD
> Eduardo Casino has written VMSMOUNT in 2011 :-) It lets you
> mount VMWare shared directories as a FreeDOS drive letter :-)

This would be very useful to include.

> I guess it would also be possible to do something fancy for
> mouse support. DOS does not have a built-in clipboard, so a
> guest driver for that would have to do something else, such
> as Linux style "mark to put into clipboard, use middle mouse
> button to paste clipboard contents into keyboard buffer" but
> I am not aware of such guest drivers for DOS yet. Same for
> the possibility of guest graphics drivers, where DOS has to
> rely on the BIOS and hardware VGA / VESA emulation instead.

I was not only thinking about VGA/VESA drivers, but mostly about the 
correct mouse setup and maybe some addition drivers like the correct 
(SCSI or ATAPI) CD-ROM drivers and sound drivers.

If I remember correctly, Virtual PC emulates a standard ATAPI CD-ROM 
drive. The sound emulation is a SoundBlaster 16. So it would be wise to 
include drivers for the Sound Blaster.

But again: what about the license of those DOS drivers?

> Are there any Virtual PC, Virtual Box or QEMU specific guest
> drivers for FreeDOS?

I just assume that the DOS drivers will also work on FreeDOS. (They were 
developed for IBM DOS/PC DOS and MS-DOS.)
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/824967

>> I don't think DOSBox requires a virtual hard disk image at all.
> Yes and no. You can put your DOS games in a directory to let
> DOSBox open them, but if you want to use FreeDOS kernel and
> drivers, you probably have to use a disk image? The "normal"
> style of DOSBox is that the whole DOS is a built-in illusion.
>
> If you do not need fancy drivers and want to work mainly with
> the DOSBox built-in stuff, a similar strategy as for DOSEMU
> is probably easier: Ship FreeDOS as a directory ready to be
> dropped in a shared directory C: "drive" for DOSBox?

This is the first time I hear about running actual DOS (the kernel) or 
its tools inside DOSBox. Most of this stuff isn't required and why would 
someone try to start a DOS kernel if DOS is already running?


Cheers,
userbeitrag



--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports. http://sdm.link/zohomanageengine
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Games

[userbeitrag]

original message from Tom Ehlert, 2016-06-20 17:42:
> .VHD is a fairly generic virtual *disk* format, and most virtual
> machines providers should be able to read them.
>
> a tiny bit more specialized are the virtual machine configuration
> files, but we should be able to provide multiple formats, for Virtual
> Box, DosBox, HyperV, ...
>
> still no rocket science, and no risk to damage user data.

I wonder if it was possible to include the guest integration drivers for 
Virtual PC, VirtualBox, QEMU (are there any?), Hyper-V in a provided VHD 
image... it's a license thing: it must be checked if the guest 
integration drivers are redistributable or not.

I don't think DOSBox requires a virtual hard disk image at all.

Cheers,
userbeitrag

--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports. http://sdm.link/zohomanageengine
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Games

[userbeitrag]

Hello!


What about Enhanced DR-DOS by Udo Kuhnt?
http://www.drdosprojects.de/

And why not use a mixture of Kernel and Userland? I could imagine using 
either the DR-DOS kernel (which is only free for private use) or the 
FreeDOS kernel, and a userland made of both or even proprietary parts 
from DOS versions I own. Provided these old tools still work on the more 
modern kernels.


Original message from Eric Auer, 2016-06-19 10:44:
>> we're just lucky anything works. Games are not high priority
> I think they are. I mean people still love their retro games,
> while they hopefully use software for multi tasking OS with
> network, multiple cores, GUI and 47 TB of RAM at work now ;-)

I honestly think that DOSBox, ScummVM and maybe a VM like VirtualBox is 
the way to go here. FreeDOS, or any other DOS, is not /ready/ for it on 
modern hardware, and I doupt it ever will be. It's not viable to invest 
in compatibility anyway, given the great alternatives.


Cheers, userbeitrag

--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports. http://sdm.link/zohomanageengine
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Games

[userbeitrag]

Hello Eric Auer!


Original message from Eric Auer, 2016-06-18 19:14:
> Hi anonymous Abwesend forum member who is pessimistic about DOS ;-)
>
>> Running FreeDOS on real hardware can be challenging.
> FreeDOS no, old DOS games yes.

No offence, FreeDOS is of course a modern project. But DOS is an old 
conpect for an operating system.

>> FreeDOS on the other hand is a very old operating system concept.
> Old concept yes, old operating system no. This means: DOS
> has no multi tasking and no 64 bit address space, so your
> modern computer will be bored: Only a single CPU core and
> at most 3 to 4 GB of RAM can be used inside DOS. Which is
> of course a lot more than old DOS games ever could imagine.

DR DOS had a multitasker.

> This leads to the next problem:
>> Running it on modern hardware will very often result in some features
>> not working correctly. DOS games often required an AdLib or SoundBlaster
>> audio card. For AC'97 and Intel HD-Audio sound, there are no DOS drivers
> Old DOS games do not use "DOS drivers" for sound. They could
> not imagine that games would have any more fancy sound card
> available than a stereo SoundBlaster. So the games THEMSELVES
> contain drivers for SoundBlaster. DOS kernel is unable to tell
> a game that it must use your computer has 7.1 channel surround.
> This is where DOSBOX and similar special tools comes into play:
>
> DOSBOX can show your game a SIMULATION of a SoundBlaster card
> and capture all sound from that simulation. It can then send
> the sound to your REAL sound card so you can hear the sound
> from the front speakers of your surround system :-)

Note that the SoundBlaster DOS drivers (.SYS) did the exact same thing 
on DOS: since modern SB cards were hardware-wise completely different 
cards, namely Ensoniq, they had to provide "drivers" that would enable 
you to continue to play games (and programs) written for the original 
SoundBlaster (1.x or 2.0, Pro and 16). The SoundBlaster 16 PCI cards 
already used Ensoniq chips and were incompatible with the ISA 
SoundBlaster - the DOS driver worked as an emulator for the original SB.
> Note that you CAN run a modern media player for DOS, which is
> aware of surround sound cards, to enjoy MP3 & OGG on modern PC.

Yes, but bit number of original DOS programs cannot use modern sound 
hardware.
> Is there anything else than sound which has problems in DOS on
> modern hardware, when playing old games written in the 1990s?
>
> Note that DOS also does not involve networking in the operating
> system itself: You may have a DOS web browser which supports a
> common packet driver interface. The DOS kernel does not care if
> you have packet drivers or web browsers. So because you will not
> find a packet driver for your wireless network, the DOS kernel
> can not help your DOS web browser to use a wireless network.
>
> Which other "dozens" of drivers do you miss? Interesting topic!

1. The network hardware is one example. For every ISA network card you 
had a DOS driver, and sometimes even a proprietary protocol (NetWare).

2. I don't know if there is one, but a CPU throttling driver would be a 
good thing. One that supports Intel (Enhanced) SpeedStep and AMD 
PowerNow!/Cool'n'Quiet. Reading the ACPI tables would be required. 
Turning off the remaining (unused) CPU cores would reduce power 
consumption and enhance the thermal situation.

3. USB devices like USB sound cards, USB video cards (enabling you to 
use a second/third/... montior) will not work. USB video capturing 
devices (WebCams, analog TV, DVB, ...) will also lack drivers and a 
usable protocol.

4. Some input devices like keyboards and mice don't work correctly, or 
additional functions are not accessible (additional mouse 
buttons/wheels). Again, there is no DOS driver to program these functions.

5. Is there a DOS driver for USB joysticks? I know that analog joysticks 
on the MIDI port (gameport) will likely work, but do digital protocols 
work as well?

6. How is the support for graphics cards? Are there tools to add 
additional VESA modes if they happen to be missing in the BIOS?

7. I recently re-installed a IDE/ATAPI Zip Drive (250MB). I guess there 
will be a DOS driver available for this one. How about other exotic 
storage devices? And will USB Zip Drives also work in DOS? (I know that 
parallel port versions and IDE versions do, but USB?)

8. But the worst incompatibility of them all is the lack of CSM 
(Compatiblity Support Module) on modern UEFI machines. Or does FreeDOS 
run on EFI/UEFI?


I know, this may not be a dozen, but a lot. Depending on the actual 
hardware and on the requirement of the to-be-used (legacy) software.

IMHO, for games lack of sound and mouse/joystick support really is the 
fun-killer.

> Cheers, Eric

Cheers as well, the anonymous userbeitrag.

Re: [Freedos-user] Games

[userbeitrag]

Running FreeDOS on real hardware can be challenging.

If you only want to play Lure of the Temptress, on a mordern computer 
you have two options:
* DOSBox
* ScummVM

I would recommend to use ScummVM for playing old (and by ScummVM 
supported) click-and-point adventures. It integrates very well into 
modern operating systems (Windows, OS X, Linux) and doesn't have to 
emulate a DOS environment and x86 hardware.

DOSBox will run almost all DOS games on various hardware and also runs 
on modern operating systems, even on other platforms (ARM, MIPS, PowerPC 
and more, additional to x86).

FreeDOS on the other hand is a very old operating system concept. 
Running it on modern hardware will very often result in some features 
not working correctly. DOS games often required an AdLib or SoundBlaster 
audio card. For AC'97 and Intel HD-Audio sound, there are no DOS drivers 
that can emulate an AdLib or SoundBlaster card. The result is that on 
lots of hardware setups you will end up with a bootable FreeDOS with 
dozen of missing drivers, simply because of the comprehensible fact that 
those drivers would have to be programmed by the developers, which would 
cost a lot of money, and for an operating system that is almost no 
longer used by anyone, except some enthusiats. DOS driver development on 
modern hardware is just not viable.


Good luck!



Original message by Brandon Taylor, 2016-06-17 23:12:
> I just acquired FreeDOS via Rufus, a program that lets me create bootable USB
> drives. I’m trying to play some DOS games, such as “Lure Of The Temptress,” 
> but
> the game won’t run – it says “Not enough memory to run the game.” As I have 
> not
> had a lot of experience with the DOS family of operating systems (I was raised
> on Windows), I don’t know what to do, if there’s anything I /can/ do, to get
> this game to work. It sounds like a typical problem with DOS’s 640KB 
> limitation,
> but I don’t know how to get around it. Can anyone help me out here?
>
> Brandon Taylor


--
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports. http://sdm.link/zohomanageengine
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] entering into the command-line as fast as possible

[userbeitrag]

On Fri, Sep 18 2015 at 10:54pm, dmccunney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Jim Hall  wrote:
>> But 3(b) in the GNU GPL says source code should be available up to
>> three years after they download the binary, upon request.
> The problem is that this is generally taken to mean "The source that
> produced the particular binary the user has", so that the user can get
> the source, reproduce the build environment, and create a duplicate of
> the binary they have.
>
> Since the state of the source in an open source product is variable,
> current source may not build, let alone duplicate the user's binary,
> so you can't just point at the development repository when people
> inquire about source.
>
> If you keep older binaries around, the source that produced them is
> more or less required.  Your practice looks like the best compromise.

Excuse me for interjecting, but doesn't a source repository do exactly
that? If I get GitHub correctly, you can go back to any moment in time
and download the source as it was at this particular moment.

The question is: why not use e.g. GitHub for FreeDOS related sources?

Cheers.

--
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] For what architectures is FreeDOS designed?

[userbeitrag]

On 2014-11-23 20:57, Dennis Holierhoek wrote:
 Hello everybody,

 I was wondering about two things:
 For what architectures is FreeDOS designed?
 For what architectures must programs be designed to run on FreeDOS?

 Dennis

As far as I can tell, QDOS i.e. Quick and Dirty Operating System was a
16-bit operating system from the start. Every MS-DOS compatible system
is therefor 100% 16-bit when it comes to the kernel and system functions.
DOS runs on architectures that support the real mode. Real mode is the
16-bit mode of Intel 8086 processors and compatibles. Even modern Core
i3/i5/i7 CPUs support real mode and can therefor run DOS, if the
computer has a BIOS.

Modern systems switched from the BIOS to UEFI, which is not supported by
DOS.

There are certain 32-Bit Extenders for DOS, which allow a program to use
protected mode, which is the 32-bit mode that was introduced with the
Intel 80386. But the kernel in general doesn't require protected mode
i.e. 32-bit at all.

To answer your question in short:
DOS is designed for 16-bit Intel 8086 compatible systems with a BIOS.
It natively runs 16-bit programs.

If you want a 8-bit system, you probably need CP/M-80 and a suitable
processor, such as the Intel 8080 or the Z80.

Cheers!
--
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration  more
Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Partition magic anyone?

[userbeitrag]

--  Original message  --
Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] Partition magic anyone?
Date:Friday, 05. October 2012
From:Santiago Almenara almen...@gmail.com
To:  Discussion and general questions about FreeDOS. freedos-
u...@lists.sourceforge.net
 On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Felix Miata mrma...@earthlink.net wrote:
  Likely if you had it you'd be stumped when you have devices of more than
  2TB.
  Try http://partedmagic.com/doku.php instead.
 
 Why not use GParted?
 It's free.

GParted is part of Parted Magic.

http://partedmagic.com/doku.php?id=start
[Quote]
The Parted Magic OS employs core programs of GParted and Parted to handle 
partitioning tasks […]
[/Quote]

I used Parted Magic a couple of times and it works great for just 
partitioning. At least for DOS I don’t see any problems there, but it is 
definitely not 100% when it comes to the newest Windows on GPT or with OS X and 
HFS+ partitions. At least a version of Parted Magic I used a couple of years 
ago had issues (Mac OS X and Windows issues that is).

Cheers,
Andreas.

--
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS packaging rules / paths

[userbeitrag]

Hi!
Long time no see. I’d like to mention my POV anyways.

Why use a Unix-like structure?

In DOS, everything is where you want to put it.
Configuration files traditionally reside in the same directory where the actual 
program that uses it is located. If not, it has its own structure (like 
complex programs, games).

What I would like:
SYSDRV=C:
APPSDRV=%SYSDRV
GAMESDRV=%SYSDRV
DATADRV=D:
DOSDIR=%SYSDRV%\DOS
GAMESDIR=%GAMESDRV%\GAMES
APPSDIR=%APPSDRV%\APPS

For all the _binaries_ this would result in the following:

In %DOSDIR, everything that comes out-of-the-box with the DOS distribution 
goes, like the system files (FORMAT.EXE, SYS.EXE etc.) – it kind of is, what 
would be in C:\WINDOWS and C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM[32] on a Windows system and in 
\bin, \sbin (and propably \lib) on a Unix system.

== Thus, all DOS stuff would be in C:\DOS

In %APPSDIR I’d put every optional application in its own directory %pkgname, 
like a word editor, vi, a paint program, even ViewMAX/OpenGEM and the-like.

== Thus, OpenGEM would be in C:\APPS\GEM

The problem is, that there are a lot of small DOS programs, that don’t need 
their own directory. For those, I suggest a “miscellaneous” section that I 
would name %APPSDIR%\BIN.

== Thus, a small (non-FreeDOS distribution) program, like TDE (Thomson Davis 
Editor: TDE.EXE, older version that ran with TDE.CFG and nothing else) would 
be in C:\APPS\BIN.

The games go to %GAMESDIR%\%pkgname.

== Thus, Ultima Underworld II would be in C:\GAMES\UW2.

For (optional) _documentation_ I suggest, where applicable:

DOCDRV=%SYSDRV
DOCDIR=%DOCDRV%\DOC

== Thus, the OpenGEM documentation would be in C:\DOC\GEM.

For (optional) _source files_ I suggest:

SRCDRV=%SYSDRV
SRCDIR=%SRCDRV%\SRC

If needed, the sources of the program would go into %SRCDIR\%pkgname.

Last but not least, _development stuff_ would go into:

DEVDRV=%SYSDRV
DEVDIR=%DEVDRV%\DEV

I would set this to DEVDIR=%DEVDRV, because this would get me Borland Pascal 
into C:\PASCAL, which I appreciate very much. But then, Pascal was the _only_ 
programming language I every /played/ with. But, you get the point.

Some optional system stuff, like DOS4GW and the-like, I’d put into $DOSDIR 
directly.


How is that?
Cheers,
Andreas.

--
Got visibility?
Most devs has no idea what their production app looks like.
Find out how fast your code is with AppDynamics Lite.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;262219671;13503038;y?
http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] 387 emulator

[userbeitrag]

charles wrote on Wednesday 24th of November 2010:
 I have recently installed freedos 1.0 on my 486sx laptop.  I am now
 looking for a math coprocessor emulator that won't kill emm386. Any
 suggestions?

No. I do know there was one in the old days (late 80's), and as far as I 
remember it was freeware. But I don't recall its name. It was used in my 
school for running AutoCAD (acad) on their 386SX PCs.

If I should find out, I'll come back to tell you.

I guess, searching the world wide web is no luck, since this TSR program is 
about as old as the WWW.

There is also the possibility that it wouldn't be compatible with FreeDOS.

For what it's worth,
Andreas.

--
Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App  Earn a Chance To Win $500!
Tap into the largest installed PC base  get more eyes on your game by
optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the
Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] PC-MOS/386 - a GPLed Multitasking DOS alternative (MS-DOS 5.0 compatible)

[userbeitrag]

Oups...

Sorry, I was wrong - the source code is NOT yet available. And it is 
uncertain, which license it will end up with.

Andreas.


Original message:
 Hi!

 I wonder if anyone ever heard of PC-MOS/386?
 Since its code is now under the GPLv2 it should be considered as an option
 to the existing FreeDOS distribution or (for developers) as a new source of
 improvement (code exchange) to FreeDOS itself.

 http://code.google.com/p/pcmos386/

 Greetings,
 Andreas.



--
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge  
This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, 
vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize  
details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] PC-MOS/386 - a GPLed Multitasking DOS alternative (MS-DOS 5.0 compatible)

[userbeitrag]

Hi!

I wonder if anyone ever heard of PC-MOS/386?
Since its code is now under the GPLv2 it should be considered as an option to 
the existing FreeDOS distribution or (for developers) as a new source of 
improvement (code exchange) to FreeDOS itself.

http://code.google.com/p/pcmos386/

Greetings,
Andreas.

--
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge  
This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, 
vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize  
details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user