Hi,
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Jack gykazequ...@earthlink.net wrote:
VBox lets you choose how much % of processor to use, so it doesn't
have to use 100% all the time. I just wonder whether their bugs are
due to their tweaked BIOS or some hidden instruction incompatibility
or what.
Eric,
How does DOS ever detect that any hardware is unreliable??
I do not know, but earlier in this thread, somebody said that
the numbering of FAT filesystem exists, among other reasons,
to help DOS detect floppy changes even if there is no change
line available.
The FAT file system is
Eric,
Do try to understand, as my damn ex-wife never did [part of
why she BECAME my ex- 32 years ago!!], that I have a REASON
for everything I say and do, same as for everything in UIDE
Just making suggestions for universally faster and
more fool-proof UIDE, as I dislike the idea that
Op 22-5-2012 6:21, Rugxulo schreef:
Is anybody working on FD 1.2? I haven't heard anything (and don't
think we need it just yet anyways). Switching things around is, I
guess, that person's ultimate decision (Bernd??).
I'm indeed working on a FreeDOS 1.2 as 1.0 and 1.1 didn't meet up to my
Op 22-5-2012 16:05, Jack schreef:
PCI V2.0C and later versions have all worked just FINE, until
the rather poor emulator know as VirtualBox appeared, using
its MISERABLE emulation logic for the Intel PIIX3 chipset!!
If they DO NOT have such long delay trouble with their ICH9
emulation logic,
Jack:
The FAT file system is defined by DOS, and I want UIDE/UIDE2 to
have NO run-time dependencies on the DOS system.
Nice in theory, but unfortunately doesn't work in practice.
DOS's management of the change line is under the sole auspices of the block
device driver, not hardware/BIOS (INT
The FAT file system is defined by DOS, and I want UIDE/UIDE2 to
have NO run-time dependencies on the DOS system.
Nice in theory, but unfortunately doesn't work in practice.
Sure seems to, since before this thread, UIDE/UIDE2 have trapped only
BIOS Int 13h I-O requests, and no one has ever
---
Your problem is that that you're using a USB printer, rather than a
parallel port printer. MS never added USB support to DOS, even though they
actually continued to make DOS for several years after USB came out
(mid-1990's). No version of DOS today has native support for USB
(printers, mice,
