> NTVDM
Compatibility and quality problems aside, WinNT+'s NTVDM only supports (subset
of) DOS programs designed for the standard IBM PC with limited hardware
configurations. On the other hand, DOSBox(-X) goes way beyond this, for
example, allowing to emulate another full DOS-based PC, runnin
> The 32-bit WinNT one can't: it's a sort of VM, containing a DOS emulator.
> The reason the NT one isn't very good is the reason that NT was a successful
> product: because it isolates apps from the hardware, making it more reliable
> and allowing SMP and things.
The root reason is that WinNT i
Hello,
On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 12:00, Liam Proven wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 01:34, Wengier W via Freedos-user
> wrote:
> >
> > The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge
> differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's
> NTVDM.
>
> Wel
>> The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge
>> differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's
>> NTVDM.
> Well, yes. The Win9x DOS prompt is real DOS running on a real DOS
> kernel which can access hardware.
Well, no. The Win9x DOS prom
On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 01:34, Wengier W via Freedos-user
wrote:
>
> The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge
> differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's
> NTVDM.
Well, yes. The Win9x DOS prompt is real DOS running on a real DOS
kerne
Hello,
> I am puzzled: I mean, XP can run DOS programs directly, without
assistance, can't it?
The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge
differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's NTVDM.
Even OS/2's MVDM did a much better job than XP's
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:15:32 +0200
Aitor Santamaría wrote:
> Yes, on 32-bit versions of Windows (and I think this applies to
> Windws
> Vista/7 at least), there used to be the NTVDM that can run DOS
> programs fairly well.
> I used to test FD-KEYB there quite a lot, as in case it locks the
> cons
Hello.
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 11:05, Liam Proven wrote:
> I am puzzled: I mean, XP can run DOS programs directly, without
> assistance, can't it?
>
> Yes, on 32-bit versions of Windows (and I think this applies to Windws
Vista/7 at least), there used to be the NTVDM that can run DOS programs
fa
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 07:13, Wengier W via Freedos-user
wrote:
>
> DOSBox-X's Windows XP support has been there for a long time, which will
> benefit those who use it (original DOSBox also supports it). I think the
> pixel-perfect mode patch which you implemented still works too, so that those
Hi Anton,
DOSBox-X's Windows XP support has been there for a long time, which will
benefit those who use it (original DOSBox also supports it). I think the
pixel-perfect mode patch which you implemented still works too, so that those
who use Windows XP (or higher) can enjoy it as well.
Wengier
Wengier Wu:
> Yes, most 32-bit Windows builds of DOSBox-X can run on
> Windows XP. DOSBox-X also has DOS builds for running in
> DOS itself (so that you can emulate a different DOS system
> for example).
As happy user of Windows XP, and am very glad that you keep
support of this last sane version
Tanks all for answer
Il gio 4 ago 2022, 20:23 Wengier Wu via Freedos-user <
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> ha scritto:
> Hi Gabriele,
>
> Yes, most 32-bit Windows builds of DOSBox-X can run on Windows XP.
> DOSBox-X also has DOS builds for running in DOS itself (so that you can
> emulate a
DosBox-x is compatible in XP and I use it quite a bit to test stuff and
work on projects along with FreeDOS. I haven’t yet found any issues runnin
it. Even installed and ran Windows 98 as well.
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforg
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 9:38 AM Gabriele Barbone wrote:
>
> Hi dosbox-x can run on Windows XP SP3? I have a old pc
Not sure, I think?? they still provide XP-compatible versions
alongside newer Windows versions. BUT! It does run atop FreeDOS with
the included HX files. ;-)
(quoting the websi
Hi Gabriele,
Yes, most 32-bit Windows builds of DOSBox-X can run on Windows XP. DOSBox-X
also has DOS builds for running in DOS itself (so that you can emulate a
different DOS system for example). The most recent version of DOSBox-X is now
0.84.2 / 2022.08.0, which (among other things) added n
Hi dosbox-x can run on Windows XP SP3? I have a old pc
Il ven 8 lug 2022, 15:10 Eric Auer ha scritto:
>
> Forwarding from BTTR - the release notes are indeed worth reading :-)
> After CandyMan found a problem with NDN (Necromancer's Dos Navigator),
> Wengier provided an updated https://dosbox-x.
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 tailore
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 (slowdo
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.
h
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
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
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:25 AM Louis Santillan wrote:
>
> These days, it several MBs more than 8MB, but, TinyCoreLinux [0][1] is
> a RAMDisk based Linux that requires less than 48MB.Earlier
> versions ran on far less and even offered network connected, command
> line versions running in
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:57 PM wrote:
>
> 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...
I only have DR-DOS 7.
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 7:56 AM Mateusz Viste wrote:
>
> On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:
> > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
>
> Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ:
>
> "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM.
> (...)
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:43 AM wrote:
>
> 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!
XP is dead as a doornail (since 2014), so is even Win7 nowadays. No
more security f
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:43 AM wrote:
>
> Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
Linux started in 1991 on a 386 with 2 MB of RAM. Granted, newer
releases need a tad more. ;-)
While outdated (and I'm no expert), for future reference, here's some
lightweight Linux dist
These days, it several MBs more than 8MB, but, TinyCoreLinux [0][1] is
a RAMDisk based Linux that requires less than 48MB.Earlier
versions ran on far less and even offered network connected, command
line versions running in under 16MB of RAM on i486DX or better [2].
Even a mildly loaded i486DX
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 s
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 i
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:08 AM ZB wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote:
>
> > On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:
> > > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
> >
> > Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ:
> >
> > "Debian Linux c
On 25/03/2020 14:07, ZB wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote:
On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:
Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ:
"Debian Linux can be installed on systems with onl
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:
> > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
>
> Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ:
>
> "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM. (..
On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote:
Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM.
Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ:
"Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM.
(...) An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk
spa
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 SS
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. Som
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 8:21 PM, Robert Riebisch wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> > Mind - although I still have both 430CDS' in storage for uncompleted
> > project updates, I had to wave the white flag on productively using Puppy
> > for kids use, on those particular specs. What worked best in it was
Hi Andrew,
> Mind - although I still have both 430CDS' in storage for uncompleted project
> updates, I had to wave the white flag on productively using Puppy for kids
> use, on those particular specs. What worked best in it was a 2GB sd-card with
> FreeDOS 1.1 configured to boot up Ronald Blank
I spent two years in Papua New Guinea in the mid 1980s using (and developing
on and for) an Altos 8000-10 using MP/M II. Mostly CB-80 with bits of
assembler. Interesting/fun times.
> Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.
Totally agree with that.
Bruce.
__
dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 15:53 (UTC-0400):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I
>> couldn't tell
>> any difference from SysV.
> With what sort of hardware?
Based on the descriptions on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altos_Computer
dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 21:59 (UTC-0400):
> SeaMonkey 2.X couldn't be built static.
Please reconcile this statement with the Mozilla folk's representation that
every
binary app downloadable from mozilla.org, including all SeaMonkey versions, is
static built.
--
Evolution as taught in pu
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 8:37 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM dmccunney wrote:
> >
> > The person who passed it on said [Transmeta Crusoe] was "Slow, slow, SLOW".
> > No surprise - it came with WindowsXP SP2, and took *8* minutes to simply
> > *boot*, and a lot more to do anyt
On 3/24/2020 12:53 PM, dmccunney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Felix Miata wrote:
I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I
couldn't tell
any difference from SysV.
With what sort of hardware?
Xenix, if memory serves, began based on Unix System III and was
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 w
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM dmccunney wrote:
>
> The person who passed it on said [Transmeta Crusoe] was "Slow, slow, SLOW".
> No surprise - it came with WindowsXP SP2, and took *** minutes to simply
> *boot*, and a lot more to do anything once up.
I heard that XP was designed to get to
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 3:30 AM, dmccunney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:52 PM wrote:
> >
> >... Puppy Linux is designed for older, less powerful hardware. (A poster
> on the Puppy forums described creating a dedicated media server based
> on Puppy that ran on an ancient Toshiba laptop w
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Felix Miata wrote:
> dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400):
> > mich...@robinson-west.com wrote:
>
> >> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way.
>
> > *Unix* didn't run on a 286. There were a couple of attempts
> > (including one from AT&T) that died
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020, Felix Miata wrote:
dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400):
mich...@robinson-west.com wrote:
Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way.
*Unix* didn't run on a 286. There were a couple of attempts
(including one from AT&T) that died horribly due to lack of
dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400):
> mich...@robinson-west.com wrote:
>> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way.
> *Unix* didn't run on a 286. There were a couple of attempts
> (including one from AT&T) that died horribly due to lack of HW memory
> management. It only becam
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:52 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.
I run an Android port of DOSbox on an older and less po
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:52 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.
Obviously, but my own Pentium 4 from 2002 (mostly) d
The workaround is easy, you just read from STDIN as a file with DOS FN 0x3F.
The other is supposed to work and this is a little more code. But, who is
complaining. :)
--
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data an
Sorry, minor correction on results.
> On Mar 22, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Jerome Shidel wrote:
>
> Hello Eric (and anyone else who is interested),
>
> Here is a little proof-of-concept demonstration of the issue regarding I/O
> redirection in DOSBox.
>
> ; begin example code
>
> ; NASM 2.11.08 for
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> from dmccunney and Ralf Quint:
>
>> > You may want to look at vDOS instead. vDOS is a fork of DOSBox,
>> > specifically intended to run character mode DOS business apps on
>> > Windows. See https://sourceforge.net/projects/vdos/
>>
>> +1 v
from dmccunney and Ralf Quint:
> > You may want to look at vDOS instead. vDOS is a fork of DOSBox,
> > specifically intended to run character mode DOS business apps on
> > Windows. See https://sourceforge.net/projects/vdos/
> +1 vDOS is a much better choice than DOSBox if you do not intend to ru
On 1/30/2015 7:43 AM, dmccunney wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rinaldo Guelpa
> wrote:
>> Hello Friends,
>> I wish to use the dosbox in an 2.5 gig computer to run some text based
>> programs I am not into games.
> Which programs?
>
>> Can someone help me please help. I wish to use the
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rinaldo Guelpa wrote:
> Hello Friends,
> I wish to use the dosbox in an 2.5 gig computer to run some text based
> programs I am not into games.
Which programs?
> Can someone help me please help. I wish to use the windows screanreader if
> possible.
You may want
Hello,
DOSbox is known for not working well with screenreaders. I have tried two of
them (Habla and ASAP) with a real hardware Braille ’n Speak 2000 as a
synthesizer, and both work only in review mode and make the DOS computer emit a
constant buzz from the virtual PC speaker. I recommend using a
At 4/16/2007 06:44 p, you wrote:
>Hi Dennis,
>
>Dosbox normally uses a built-in simulation of DOS,
>not a real separate DOS. For sound in DOS boxes,
>I think there was something called NTVDM. If you
>have Linux, you should use Dosemu, which is a
>virtual PC specialized for running DOS fast. You
>
> I'm a bit confused.
> I use DOSbox but i have timing issues in MIDI.
>
> Was thinking of using DOS 6.22, but then saw FreeDos.
> What reasons might I chose one over the other?
>
> Does FreeDos work under XP or needs to be booted separately?
>
> My music app needs an mup401 or a serial port, so
Hi Dennis,
Dosbox normally uses a built-in simulation of DOS,
not a real separate DOS. For sound in DOS boxes,
I think there was something called NTVDM. If you
have Linux, you should use Dosemu, which is a
virtual PC specialized for running DOS fast. You
can boot a real DOS in recent Dosbox versi
60 matches
Mail list logo