> I am curious if you can run Warcraft II under Wine
I never tested this WC II at all :-|
> ReactOS used to an effort to clone Windows 95
YO ... FreeWin95 IIRC "tried" to clone 95, ReactOS always
NT (but moving: NT4 -> 2K -> XP -> Wi$ta -> 7 -> 8 -> ???)
> until that was abandoned in favor of t
On 2012-12-20 08:30 (GMT) dos386 composed:
> there is no solution for Win16
There is. It's just not free: OS/2 Warp (old IBM name) & eComStation (current
release)
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
Team
From: Jim Hall
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:55:23 -0600
> It wants to run the FORMAT command, which operates on one partition to lay
> down a DOS file system. If you want to be really safe you can run mkdosfs
> from Debian to put a DOS file system on that partition, then boot the
> FreeDOS instal
From: Felix Miata
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 23:36:42 -0500
> Why do you think a partitioning tool would "damage" a table?
Isn't the most common source of a failure, a bug.
> No FDISK I've
> ever used will ignore existing partitions. To alter existing partitions
> requires you to direct it
Hello list:
I am having Stack Overflow problems with this simple code under FreeDOS and
OpenWatcom:
#include
char a[8192];
int main()
{
int i;
char b[8192];
for(i=0; i<8192; i++) a[i]=b[i]=0;
return 0;
}
I keep getting stack overflow problems.
I know this code is very simple
wouldnt using memset() be better ?
On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Santiago Almenara wrote:
> Hello list:
>
> I am having Stack Overflow problems with this simple code under FreeDOS and
> OpenWatcom:
>
> #include
>
> char a[8192];
>
> int main()
> {
> int i;
> char b[8192];
>
AFAIK when you use static tables they are allocated on the stack.
You might want to try allocating them on the heap...
To do so, simply use malloc().
char *a;
a = malloc(8192);
if (a == NULL) return(1);
/* do your stuff */
free(a);
return(0);
cheers,
Mateusz
On 12/20/2012 07:24 P
First, the good news - Watcom includes code at the start and end of each
function to detect stack overflows. It is a lot easier to debug code
when you know what the root cause of the problem is. If the stack
overflow were to happen and remain silent, you could have all sorts of
strange behavi
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2012-12-19 10:37 (GMT-0800) peasth...@shaw.ca composed:
>
>> From: Rugxulo
>
>>> FDISK creates at least one partition (primary, active, FAT, presumably
>>> bootable) for DOS. (This is written into the partition table, ...
>
>> OK. If
Op 19-12-2012 19:37, peasth...@shaw.ca schreef:
> The FreeDOS 1.1 Base CD offers to apply fdisk; but you
> recommend not using it? An installer which should not be used?
The FDISK of any DOS has always been very limited, mimicking Microsoft's
installation procedure ("I'm the only operating sys
Michael:
Where can I find the default size for the watcom stack?
If you use "stack=4096", it means the default stack size might be much
smaller than the 16384 I am using.
Santiago
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Michael B. Brutman
wrote:
>
> First, the good news - Watcom includes code at th
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM, wrote:
>
> From: Rugxulo
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:31:31 -0600
>> Do you also have a working floppy drive? Working CD drive?
>
> Both. I had hoped to use the CD made from file fd11src.iso
> to install FreeDOS. Isn't that the recommended procedure?
> Hello list:
asking programming errors on a mailing list that is focused on
operating system development is considered BAD.
> I am having Stack Overflow problems with this simple code under FreeDOS and
> OpenWatcom:
> #include
> char a[8192];
> int main()
> {
> int i;
> char b[8192];
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Santiago Almenara wrote:
>
> Where can I find the default size for the watcom stack?
Dunno. I think it used to be 4 kb for 16-bit targets, but they may??
have increased it to 16 kb in the meantime.
http://www.openwatcom.com/index.php/C_Compilers_Release_Chan
The Memory Model (Tiny vs. Small vs. Compact vs. Medium vs. Large, .COM vs.
.EXE) of the compiler could be causing the issue. Some compilers used to
default to Small. What compiler flags are you using?
-L
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:28
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Michael Robinson
wrote:
>
> So yes, if I can run hxrt on top of freedos and come up with some sort
> of packet driver for the PCI Realtek network card... that will be legal
> and I won't have to worry about how many computers I'm setting
> up to play Warcraf
At 12:58 PM 12/20/2012, Louis Santillan wrote:
>The Memory Model (Tiny vs. Small vs. Compact vs. Medium vs. Large,
>.COM vs. .EXE) of the compiler could be causing the issue. Some
>compilers used to default to Small. What compiler flags are you using?
Even in the TINY model, there is no reason
On 12/20/2012 2:41 PM, Tom Ehlert wrote:
> asking programming errors on a mailing list that is focused on
> operating system development is considered BAD.
>
I don't think we have enough developers (OS or application) or enough
list traffic where we can afford to be picky ...
Mike
--
On 12/20/2012 3:11 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 12:58 PM 12/20/2012, Louis Santillan wrote:
>> The Memory Model (Tiny vs. Small vs. Compact vs. Medium vs. Large,
>> .COM vs. .EXE) of the compiler could be causing the issue. Some
>> compilers used to default to Small. What compiler flags are you u
> At 12:58 PM 12/20/2012, Louis Santillan wrote:
>>The Memory Model (Tiny vs. Small vs. Compact vs. Medium vs. Large,
>>.COM vs. .EXE) of the compiler could be causing the issue. Some
>>compilers used to default to Small. What compiler flags are you using?
> Even in the TINY model, there is no
>> asking programming errors on a mailing list that is focused on
>> operating system development is considered BAD.
> I don't think we have enough developers (OS or application) or enough
> list traffic where we can afford to be picky ...
this is stillnot the 'programming for dummies' mailing l
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:22 AM, wrote:
> From: Jim Hall
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:55:23 -0600
>> It wants to run the FORMAT command, which operates on one partition to lay
>> down a DOS file system. If you want to be really safe you can run mkdosfs
>> from Debian to put a DOS file system
Static/global variables are allocated from the heap. Dynamic variables
(like the "b" array in your code) are pushed on the stack.
Either use compiler directives to increase stack space or make both arrays
static.
This is not a FreeDOS problem and should not have been posted to this list.
Bruce
From: Bernd Blaauw
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:28:55 +0100
> 'Drive' is a typical DOS terminology, meaning partition/volume, thus
> sda1 etc. It's used as 'Drive C:'. Basically referring to everything
> which has a driveletter assigned (floppy, harddisk, cdrom, network
> shares, etc).
Well t
From: Jim Hall
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:17:26 -0600
> It may be obvious, but you should also check that your BIOS supports
> booting from CF cards.
Just tried to boot an older FreeDOS installed years ago on another CF card.
It appears OK until this.
Bad or missing Command Interpreter
Enter
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:58:34 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Michael Robinson
> wrote:
>>
>> So yes, if I can run hxrt on top of freedos and come up with some sort
>> of packet driver for the PCI Realtek network card... that will be legal
>> and I won't have to
Windows 98 sort of running on top of a DOS system doesn't work with
ipxwrapper-0.4.0. There is an error that iplphapi.dll can't be found
or something similar. Turns out, this DLL probably doesn't show up
till Windows 2000. So the thought of using Windows 98 boxes and
Windows 7 boxes together go
On 2012-12-20 21:32 (GMT-0800) Michael Robinson composed:
> I'd probably have to search for SIS 530 W2K video drivers.
Asus P5S-B motherboards had the 530 chip on the board. Maybe Asus still has
those ancient drivers for download. I have the driver CD for it here
somewhere, but it would be olde
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:32:18 -0500, Michael Robinson
wrote:
> Windows 98 sort of running on top of a DOS system doesn't work with
> ipxwrapper-0.4.0. There is an error that iplphapi.dll can't be found
> or something similar.
Why do you need an ipx wrapper on win98? You can install the IPX pro
Quoting TJ Edmister :
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:32:18 -0500, Michael Robinson
> wrote:
>
>> Windows 98 sort of running on top of a DOS system doesn't work with
>> ipxwrapper-0.4.0. There is an error that iplphapi.dll can't be found
>> or something similar.
>
> Why do you need an ipx wrapper on w
30 matches
Mail list logo
