On Sun, January 18, 2009 09:02, Jim Lemon wrote:
The extensions I'm interested in are mainly those that allow me to
access newer filesystems so that the people who use my tests won't
whinge as much about having to transfer files from DOS to NTFS or the
like.
Perhaps something like FUSE
On Sun, January 18, 2009 19:28, Eric Auer wrote:
As far as web browsing and dos, isn't dos susceptible to almost
every single virus on the planet? Another thing, some people
want to run dos thinking that it can't browse the Internet.
DOS is too old to support modern viruses, so unless you
I use FreeDOS because I have an old laptop which is somehow too slow to run
DSL. I installed FreeDOS on it and I'm currently using it for keeping a
journal on and writing an interactive fiction game in TADS.
Since I'm keeping a journal on it, it needed to be lockable... which DOS
traditionally
Hi!
Just make regular backups, and keep a clean image.
Make one before you go in the interwebz.
Got a virus? Just wipe the disk and put the image back.
As you do not always notice the virus at once, you
better also keep older images. Or maybe you keep a
few generations of backups of your
Hi!
The extensions I'm interested in are mainly those that allow me to
access newer filesystems so that the people who use my tests won't
whinge as much about having to transfer files from DOS to NTFS or the
like.
Perhaps something like FUSE (Filesystems in Userspace) could be ported
This is already what DOS does, sort of. DOS has no separation of
access rights, so there is no userspace, but it has a layered
system of drivers. The kernel supports BIOS int13 drives as well
as FAT filesystems. After booting, you can load drivers to give
the kernel access to the sectors of
Hi!
Not all DOS USB disk drivers are one part... A driver
pair that works well is for example USBASPI ASPIDISK
where the former gives block level access while the
latter connects DOS block devices to those partitions
on the USB disk which are FAT formatted. You can have
(write) some ASPINTFS
You could write such a driver but you have to remember that DOS
block device already implies FAT anyway.
This implication is a part of the problem I'm talking about. DOS (rather,
the DOS device loader) shouldn't assume that just FAT exists (it also
shouldn't discard non-FAT partitions from
Hi!
You could write such a driver but you have to remember that DOS
block device already implies FAT anyway.
This implication is a part of the problem I'm talking about. DOS (rather,
the DOS device loader) shouldn't assume that just FAT exists (it also
shouldn't discard non-FAT
Hi,
Character devices can be found by their name and can be
controlled via IOCTL... In addition, because you pass
the device name as command line option to CDEX, this way
is slightly more end user friendly than int2f handlers,
in particular if you have more than 1 CDROM driver loaded.
I'm talking about non-FAT DOS block devices. This especially includes
(beside Int13 devices) any SCSI/USB/whatever device that is _not_
accessible through Int13 (and therefore invisible to usual Int13-only
local filesystem redirectors).
no idea what you are talking about.
as a matter of
Hi all,
I read Michael Robinson's email with great interest. About my only
interest in DOS is that it allows me to take over the machinery without
the operating system butting in. It is a fantastic environment for test
programming and other uses that require real time I/O. I've been away
from
Hi Michael,
I like dos when I have an old computer and some old games that
work under dos. Running Windows on a 486 is a pain in general.
True true. You kept a 486 because games are too fast otherwise?
I think a Pentium 3 or K6-2 is a good compromise: Fast enough
for newer OSes and
Is no one else running DOS on late model machines to do actual work. My
primary machines now are Pentium D. With a mix of PATA and SATA. I
have rather recent suites from Corel and M$. But my word processor of
choice is still WP 6.2a DOS. My accounts payable program was written in
1995.
I like dos when I have an old computer and some old games that
work under dos. Running Windows on a 486 is a pain in general.
Even a low end Pentium these days is slow.
As far as web browsing and dos, isn't dos susceptible to almost
every single virus on the planet? Another thing, some
15 matches
Mail list logo
