At 10:56 AM 1/30/2013, dmccunney wrote:
I'm actually more interested in what editors people *do* use under
FreeDOS, and why they use them than I am in some hypothetical new
product.
Well, I am using the same editor(s) that I have always/long time used
in
Hi all,
My $0.02 - I totally agree with Denis here, that it's too late to create
new shiny editors for DOS. After a few decennies, people got used to
what they had, and they probably won't be willing to learn how to use a
new editor. That's why any editor that appears should try to to get
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Mateusz Viste mate...@viste-family.net wrote:
My $0.02 - I totally agree with Denis here, that it's too late to create
new shiny editors for DOS.
That reply got sent by accident partially composed.
I don't think it's too late. I just can't see anyone
At 10:56 AM 1/30/2013, dmccunney wrote:
I'm actually more interested in what editors people *do* use under
FreeDOS, and why they use them than I am in some hypothetical new
product.
Well, I am using the same editor(s) that I have always/long time used
in MS-DOS/PC-DOS for +25 years...
For small
Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions:
1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text editor as
standard text editor?
2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines used only
by nostalgy value by museum staffs)?
3. Editor
Hi. I got all four copies of this email that you crossposted to the
FreeDOS lists. Please don't spam.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Евгений Нежданов copperm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions:
1. You want to have in the FreeDOS
Any improvements to the current editors would be nice, but the
following things don't strike me as particularly important:
-- external fonts
-- what language it was written in
-- built-in BASIC interpreter
-- calendar
My biggest complaint about currently available editors are their
restrictions
El 29/01/2013 11:11 a.m., bruce.bowman tds.net escribio':
Any improvements to the current editors would be nice, but the
following things don't strike me as particularly important:
-- external fonts
-- what language it was written in
-- built-in BASIC interpreter
-- calendar
My biggest
Most people have a favorite editor already; you have an uphill battle
if you think that one editor can replace the rest. Here are some
comments on your feature list:
- 8088 class machines should be supported. There is nothing in the
80286 or 80386 opcode set that should be required for a
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM, bruce.bowman tds.net
bruce.bow...@tds.net wrote:
My biggest complaint about currently available editors are their
restrictions on file size. A new editor should page the file in from
disk as needed so as to avoid this restriction.
The usual limitation is a
The usual limitation is a 64K file size. How often must you *edit*
(as opposed to view) a larger file?
Often enough that I want it.
Bruce
--
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Michael B. Brutman
mbbrut...@brutman.com wrote:
- Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users,
please forgive me.)
Fundamentally, Gnu Emacs is a Lisp interpreter, and most of the editor
is written in Lisp.
But while you may not go the
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:00 PM, bruce.bowman tds.net
bruce.bow...@tds.net wrote:
The usual limitation is a 64K file size. How often must you *edit*
(as opposed to view) a larger file?
Often enough that I want it.
Fair enough. What are you editing when you do?
Bruce
__
Dennis
- An editor should be small enough to run on a 128K machine.
FreeDOS will not run on a 128K machine.
- Calculator? How many people do not have a physical calculator or cell
phone laying around nearby?
you are right. but wtf will I use a 128K machine for if I have a
iPhone around ?
- An
The FreeDOS EDIT clone is perfectly sufficient for basic editing
purposes. The one thing it could really use is optimization - partly
for performance (it's rather balky on my 10MHz 286, where EDIT is
perfectly fine,) but mostly for memory usage (it's about the same size
as the whole QBASIC package
On 1/29/2013 11:09 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote:
- An editor should be small enough to run on a 128K machine.
FreeDOS will not run on a 128K machine.
Ok. Then make it 256. You get the idea.
I haven't looked into the source code, but is FreeDOS really that much
of a memory hog where it will not boot
On 1/29/2013 11:09 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote:
- An editor should be small enough to run on a 128K machine.
FreeDOS will not run on a 128K machine.
Ok. Then make it 256. You get the idea.
I haven't looked into the source code, but is FreeDOS really that much
of a memory hog where it will not
At 07:02 AM 1/29/2013, =?KOI8-R?B?5dfHxc7JyiDuxdbEwc7P1w==?= wrote:
Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions:
1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text
editor as standard text editor?
Well, not the greatest fan of the FreeDOS EDIT, but in
At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
- Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users,
please forgive me.)
EMACS? Like the operating system, that's just lacking a decent editor? :-}
(Doesn't EMACS stand for Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping? :-P
- An editor
Tom,
Get up on the wrong side of the bed today? Why so defensive?
PC/MS DOS 5.x and 6.x will run in 256K with usable memory to spare.
PC/MS DOS 3.x will run in 128K with usable memory to spare. If FreeDOS
is designed/optimized for a bigger footprint then that's fair, but there
is nothing
Op 29-1-2013 20:02, Michael B. Brutman schreef:
PC/MS DOS 5.x and 6.x will run in 256K with usable memory to spare.
PC/MS DOS 3.x will run in 128K with usable memory to spare. If FreeDOS
is designed/optimized for a bigger footprint then that's fair, but there
is nothing wrong with asking or
Get up on the wrong side of the bed today? Why so defensive?
PC/MS DOS 5.x and 6.x will run in 256K with usable memory to spare.
PC/MS DOS 3.x will run in 128K with usable memory to spare.
FreeDOS will inherently use ~60K more then MSDOS as command.com swaps
only to XMS or not at all.
If
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
- Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users,
please forgive me.)
EMACS? Like the operating system, that's just lacking a decent editor? :-}
(Doesn't
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Евгений Нежданов copperm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, dear FreeDOS community members! I please answer all to my questions:
1. You want to have in the FreeDOS distribute more powerful text editor as
standard text editor?
No. The default is fine. The whole
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 07:02 AM 1/29/2013, =?KOI8-R?B?5dfHxc7JyiDuxdbEwc7P1w==?= wrote:
2. These editor must be only 8086 or can be 80386 (8086 machines
used only by nostalgy value by museum staffs)?
IMHO, authors of FreeDOS related
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:21 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
- Editors do not need interpreted languages in them. (EMACs users,
please forgive me.)
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:21 PM, dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net wrote:
At 08:51 AM 1/29/2013, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
- Editors do not need interpreted
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
Some people (Dennis??) like built-in extension languages. But I guess
that's for heavy text scripting etc. I don't personally use such, but
it could be useful. THE uses Rexx, VIM has VIMscript (or can use Lua),
Emacs has ELisp,
28 matches
Mail list logo
