Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi Arkady, GH Yes, but is it not the case that the startup files are different Startup files are same. GH Can you clarify what you mean here? How do you define same? Identical or newer versions. Are you claiming they're identical or not? If not, then they're not the same! Newer does not mean Same... GH Maybe this is where I'm getting mixed up. You appear to be saying DOS GH 6.22 is much newer than WfW 3.11, is this correct? DOS 6.22 is end of 1994 (1994/08/19), Win 3.11 is middle of 1994 (1994/05/23). I asked regarding WfW 3.11, not Win 3.11 but maybe you are saying they were released at the same time? If so, it's no wonder I got mixed up, I always thought WfW 3.11 was newer than MS-DOS 6.22 and that part of the deal was the IFS, Net and file I/O changes. I don't think of WfW as a DOS shell because big chunks of it bypass DOS. To me, a DOS shell would be something that talks to the hardware via DOS, not something that bypasses it. Either way, it's been a good learning process for me. It's made me think a lot more about how operating systems interact with hardware and also what the word shell means:) -- Gerry Hickman (London UK) - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi! 10-Июл-2006 21:06 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerry Hickman) wrote to freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net: GH Yes, but is it not the case that the startup files are different Startup files are same. GH Can you clarify what you mean here? How do you define same? Identical or newer versions. GH Are you claiming they're identical or not? GH If not, then they're not the GH same! Newer does not mean Same... This is _one program_! Or you wish to say, that FreeDOS 2035 isn't FreeDOS, because kernel.sys binary-non-identical to FreeDOS 2034? DOS 6.22 is end of 1994 (1994/08/19), Win 3.11 is middle of 1994 (1994/05/23). GH I asked regarding WfW 3.11, not Win 3.11 I just shorten name. Of course, this is WfW (aka W4WG). GH deal was the IFS, Net and file I/O changes. I don't think of WfW as a GH DOS shell because big chunks of it bypass DOS. First, not DOS, but BIOS. Second, not because this is inherent design, but because this is possible on standard configurations (with compliant IDE interfaces). GH To me, a DOS shell would GH be something that talks to the hardware via DOS, DOS doesn't talks to hardware, DOS talks with BIOS. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi Arkady, GH Are you claiming they're identical or not? This is _one program_! Or you wish to say, that FreeDOS 2035 isn't FreeDOS, because kernel.sys binary-non-identical to FreeDOS 2034? OK, but I don't agree with your conclusion here. As you point out, different Kernel versions could easily introduce new functionality (e.g. FAT32). All I was saying was that DOS 6.22 startup files are different to WfW 3.11 startup files. The exact differences may never be known due to Microsoft's failure to embrace open-source. There is also the issue of DOS 6.0 vs DOS 6.22; the update was only related to stacker/doublespace changes, so how do we know the WfW 3.11 startup files don't contain newer functionality than those of DOS 6.22 even if it was released after? Have you looked at HIMEM, EMM386 and IFSHLP.SYS in detail for example? GH To me, a DOS shell would GH be something that talks to the hardware via DOS, DOS doesn't talks to hardware, DOS talks with BIOS. Right! Eric pointed that out too off-list. Sorry for bad wording, but I'm sure everyone knew what I meant:) Actually, this is even more interesting! Isn't it the case that some Windows code can bypass the BIOS completely? If so, then what I said makes some sense... -- Gerry Hickman (London UK) - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
At 02:48 PM 7/10/2006, Gerry Hickman wrote: All I was saying was that DOS 6.22 startup files are different to WfW 3.11 startup files. The exact differences may never be known due to Microsoft's failure to embrace open-source. What startup files are you talking about? No Windows 1.x to 3.x (including Windows for Workgroups) can boot without a separate DOS being installed first... Ralf -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/384 - Release Date: 7/10/2006 - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Guys, This discussion about how Windows works has moved well beyond the original thread that involved FreeDOS. Can you guys take this thread off-list? Just trying to keep the signal-to-noise ratio fairly high here. -jh Gerry Hickman wrote: Hi Arkady, GH Are you claiming they're identical or not? This is _one program_! Or you wish to say, that FreeDOS 2035 isn't FreeDOS, because kernel.sys binary-non-identical to FreeDOS 2034? OK, but I don't agree with your conclusion here. As you point out, different Kernel versions could easily introduce new functionality (e.g. FAT32). All I was saying was that DOS 6.22 startup files are different to WfW 3.11 startup files. The exact differences may never be known due to Microsoft's failure to embrace open-source. There is also the issue of DOS 6.0 vs DOS 6.22; the update was only related to stacker/doublespace changes, so how do we know the WfW 3.11 startup files don't contain newer functionality than those of DOS 6.22 even if it was released after? Have you looked at HIMEM, EMM386 and IFSHLP.SYS in detail for example? GH To me, a DOS shell would GH be something that talks to the hardware via DOS, DOS doesn't talks to hardware, DOS talks with BIOS. Right! Eric pointed that out too off-list. Sorry for bad wording, but I'm sure everyone knew what I meant:) Actually, this is even more interesting! Isn't it the case that some Windows code can bypass the BIOS completely? If so, then what I said makes some sense... -- I'm sorry my president's an idiot. I didn't vote for him. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi, DRDOS has DPMI. I assume FD could if it doesn't. What is the exact technical reason you can't start WfW 3.11 from FreeDOS? Is it the DPMI thing or something else? I haven't looked much into this topic, but it cannot be the DPMI, as when you run WIN then Microsoft's nice extender WIN386.EXE or if you prefer VMM32.VXD (I've always loved the Win95 beta name, DOS386.EXE) starts. I guess there's a good reason why MS-DOS responds to the DOS386.EXE start broadcast (whereas FreeDOS doesn't). For what this is worth, I am able to get FreeDOS with the Q stuff to run on newer MBs - AMD 64 -that fail with DRDOS. Yes, FreeDOS is great on modern hardware. They don't like EMM386; DR or FD. Yes, I've posted at great length about this in the past. I use UMBPCI at the moment. 64 bit is a bit of a jump, but if you will settle for 32 bit - for now - I think we did most of that, it's called OS/2, Ah OK! Maybe it's time to look again at OS/2. Well, OS/2 was promoted as better DOS than DOS, but I don't think OS/2 is so well documented as to start Free-OS/2 (nice and interesting attempt if you do :)) Aitor - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi! 6-Июл-2006 22:10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerry Hickman) wrote to freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net: You mean you booted into MS-DOS 6.22 and then started WfW from within DOS 6.22? If so, I have to ask why?? GH No one has answered this part yet, especially why. There _was_ answer. See next line: That's actually how Windows 1.x-3.x worked ... Ie., Win3 was designed to work on runned MS-DOS. Not only MS-DOS 6.22 - previous versions too. GH Yes, if you means 3.0 I agree it's a shell around DOS. I don't agree in GH the case of WfW 3.11 No, all the same, except that 3.11 contains more drivers. Kernel, which works over DOS, remains same. technically, Win95/98 also worked a similar way, but Microsoft kind of changed things to make it not so obvious. GH I think to claim a 32bit prot-mode o/s with a PnP driver model is a DOS GH Shell is stretching it beyond belief. Application, which runs from DOS, and works with disks directly (say, FDISK), but continues to use DOS services for other tasks, remains DOS-application. GH Does every 32bit API call map back to a DOS 6.22 software interrupt? Not necessary. But many. And same true for other DOS-programs - beside DOS API, they use many things without accessing DOS. For example, screen IO through BIOS or even directly to video memory. For Windows 3.11 (WFW) you boot into DOS, then you run win to start Windows. GH Yes, but is it not the case that the startup files are different, plus Startup files are same. GH it's prot-mode, 1. Previous versions also may work in PM (so called Enhanced mode). 2. DOS-protected programs also works in PM. So what? GH and anyway is it not the case you are much better to run GH it with it's own startup files, HIMEM, EMM386 and IFSHLP, as opposed to GH the DOS 6.22 versions, especially for Networking? Wrong. MS-DOS 6.22 was much newer and it recommended to use himem/emm386 from it, instead native ones. Think of Windows as being just like Norton File Commander, or MS-DOS DOSSHELL. GH I can't. This is your trouble, not us. :) Windows just sat on top of DOS and managed the multitasking. GH As I said, a different o/s, the fact it was loaded from DOS 6.22 doesn't GH mean it's just a DOS shell. If I booted WinXP from grub it doesn't GH mean it's just a LINUX shell. But XP doesn't uses grub for its services and nowhere depends from its functionality. Whereas Win3 (and W9x) does depends on DOS services (though, W9x is less dependent, because it replaces most services on-the fly). Different issue is Novel Netware - this OS starts from DOS, but it completely not depends on DOS in other things, so this is really (independent) OS. GH Eric mentioned in the past that DOS does GH not have the sub-systems to allow multiple programs to read/write to the GH NIC at the same time and to be able to queue them. In my view, this GH makes WfW a different o/s. No. If I in my DOS-program implement asynchronous IO over serial lines, this not makes my program different OS. Windows 3.11 (WFW) stopped using DOS for file i/o, Not necessary - only when runned special driver, which bypasses DOS (and BIOS). GH Exactly, but how did they invent new I/O that didn't rely on DOS? Because DOS doesn't deals with real IO, DOS only handles logical structure of file system - whereas driver traps all IO requests and replaces BIOS functionality. GH Does Windows make calls direct to the hardware interrupts? Yes. But these _additional_ features do not untie Win3 dependency from DOS in all other parts. Windows wasn't so much an operating system as an extension that leveraged DOS to do most of the behind the scenes work. That's what Ray means with just a shell. GH OK, let's agree it's just a shell for a minute; why would anyone want to GH start it from within FreeDOS? Because those anyone expect replace non-free MS-DOS by free one. GH In my view, it's a total mismatch. FreeDOS GH doesn't pretend to be a prot-mode o/s Also as MS-DOS. GH and anyway it runs much better in real mode at the moment. It runs same. GH If it's going to a 32/64 bit prot-mode o/s ...then it stops be MS-DOS clone. GH then GH really it's time to forget the whole legacy thing and just create a GH next generation 64bit command line o/s that supports endless memory, GH multi-processors, multi-tasking, firmware BIOS, native SCSI, NTFS, NFS, GH KERBEROS and SMB signing. There are a lot of already existing such OSes. For example, Linux or Hurd. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi! 7-Июл-2006 10:28 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerry Hickman) wrote to freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net: GH What is the exact technical reason you can't start WfW 3.11 from GH FreeDOS? Is it the DPMI thing or something else? Some differences in kernel structure. And some unimplemented in FD API calls, which used by Win3 to callback DOS. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi Arkady, GH Yes, but is it not the case that the startup files are different, plus Startup files are same. Can you clarify what you mean here? How do you define same? Wrong. MS-DOS 6.22 was much newer and it recommended to use himem/emm386 from it, instead native ones. Maybe this is where I'm getting mixed up. You appear to be saying DOS 6.22 is much newer than WfW 3.11, is this correct? I thought it was the other way round. -- Gerry Hickman (London UK) - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi! 8-Июл-2006 22:29 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerry Hickman) wrote to freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net: GH Yes, but is it not the case that the startup files are different, plus Startup files are same. GH Can you clarify what you mean here? How do you define same? Identical or newer versions. Wrong. MS-DOS 6.22 was much newer and it recommended to use himem/emm386 from it, instead native ones. GH Maybe this is where I'm getting mixed up. You appear to be saying DOS GH 6.22 is much newer than WfW 3.11, is this correct? DOS 6.22 is end of 1994 (1994/08/19), Win 3.11 is middle of 1994 (1994/05/23). GH I thought it was the other way round. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi Ray, First, do you actually except that you cannot boot any Win 3x, including 3.11. You have to boot something else first and then run Win 3x as an app. Yes and no. We all agree you can start WfW from DOS and we also know it has it's own startup files that could be called DOS, but what does DOS really mean in the context of FreeDOS? I always thought it meant DOS 6.22, but maybe it means DOS 7.x, or DOS 8.x too? If you start an o/s from within DOS, does it mean by definition that it's just a DOS shell, or could it be an o/s in it's own right? If every API call is mapped back to a DOS 6.22 interrupt then it seems fair to call it a DOS shell, but if File I/O is not using calls to DOS then would it be fair to say it's not just a DOS shell? If multiple programs are all reading/wirting to the NIC stream at the same time from WfW 3.11, are you saying they are merely managing time-slices to the underlying DOS 6.22 o/s and that it's DOS 6.22 that is doing the actual reading and writing to the PCI bus? Or is it the case that it's not using DOS calls at all? DRDOS has DPMI. I assume FD could if it doesn't. What is the exact technical reason you can't start WfW 3.11 from FreeDOS? Is it the DPMI thing or something else? For what this is worth, I am able to get FreeDOS with the Q stuff to run on newer MBs - AMD 64 -that fail with DRDOS. Yes, FreeDOS is great on modern hardware. They don't like EMM386; DR or FD. Yes, I've posted at great length about this in the past. I use UMBPCI at the moment. 64 bit is a bit of a jump, but if you will settle for 32 bit - for now - I think we did most of that, it's called OS/2, Ah OK! Maybe it's time to look again at OS/2. -- Gerry Hickman (London UK) Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Gerry Hickman wrote: If you start an o/s from within DOS, does it mean by definition that it's just a DOS shell, or could it be an o/s in it's own right? If every API call is mapped back to a DOS 6.22 interrupt then it seems fair to call it a DOS shell, but if File I/O is not using calls to DOS then would it be fair to say it's not just a DOS shell? Sorry, but you're decades too late. Such discussions were held myriads of times. I'll NOT discuss that once more! Robert Riebisch -- BTTR Software http://www.bttr-software.de/ Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:16, Jim Hall wrote: Gerry Hickman wrote: Hi Ray, with it's own bootsector and startup files? You've then got the HIMEM, EMM386 and IFSHLP to worry about. No, it is just a shell. What do you mean by just a shell? I don't use it any more but I still have the batch file to run it. In one of my older machines it was run from autoexec.bat. The line is still there but remed. You mean you booted into MS-DOS 6.22 and then started WfW from within DOS 6.22? If so, I have to ask why?? That's actually how Windows 1.x-3.x worked ... technically, Win95/98 also worked a similar way, but Microsoft kind of changed things to make it not so obvious. For Windows 3.11 (WFW) you boot into DOS, then you run win to start Windows. Think of Windows as being just like Norton File Commander, or MS-DOS DOSSHELL. While Windows had its own device drivers and executable file format, Win 1.x-3.0 still used MS-DOS for all basic operations. Windows just sat on top of DOS and managed the multitasking. Windows 3.11 (WFW) stopped using DOS for file i/o, but still made pretty heavy use of DOS for other operating system functions. Windows wasn't so much an operating system as an extension that leveraged DOS to do most of the behind the scenes work. That's what Ray means with just a shell. Yes, one of the first things I learnt on a A+ techies course I took a few years ago was that if you fiddled around with Win9x batch files and suchlike, you could have some quite interesting things happening - including setting Win9x to boot to command.com instead of the Explorer shell. It's common knowledge. Microsoft _did_ stuff it up, of course - it made everything overly complex, and as a result, horribly fragile. Wesley Parish -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish - Mau ki ana, he aha te mea nui? You ask, What is the most important thing? Maku ki ana, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, It is people, it is people, it is people. Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi! 4-Июл-2006 19:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerry Hickman) wrote to freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net: GH Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't WfW a different operating system GH with it's own bootsector and startup files? No. Win3 is an advanced _shell_, which works in protected mode on 386+ CPUs, and which runs over existing and already booted DOS. GH You've then got the HIMEM, EMM386 and IFSHLP to worry about. Win3 distributive contains these drivers, which versions newer, than in MS-DOS 3.3. But in MS-DOS 6, for example, these drivers are newer. GH Isn't it a bit like saying why can't I start OS/2 from within CP/M? This is different story - OS/2 is _really_ another, self-contained OS. Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi Jim, What you say makes perfect sense, some comments below. You mean you booted into MS-DOS 6.22 and then started WfW from within DOS 6.22? If so, I have to ask why?? No one has answered this part yet, especially why. That's actually how Windows 1.x-3.x worked ... Yes, if you means 3.0 I agree it's a shell around DOS. I don't agree in the case of WfW 3.11 technically, Win95/98 also worked a similar way, but Microsoft kind of changed things to make it not so obvious. I think to claim a 32bit prot-mode o/s with a PnP driver model is a DOS Shell is stretching it beyond belief. Does every 32bit API call map back to a DOS 6.22 software interrupt? For Windows 3.11 (WFW) you boot into DOS, then you run win to start Windows. Yes, but is it not the case that the startup files are different, plus it's prot-mode, and anyway is it not the case you are much better to run it with it's own startup files, HIMEM, EMM386 and IFSHLP, as opposed to the DOS 6.22 versions, especially for Networking? Think of Windows as being just like Norton File Commander, or MS-DOS DOSSHELL. I can't. While Windows had its own device drivers and executable file format, Win 1.x-3.0 still used MS-DOS for all basic operations. I agree. Windows just sat on top of DOS and managed the multitasking. As I said, a different o/s, the fact it was loaded from DOS 6.22 doesn't mean it's just a DOS shell. If I booted WinXP from grub it doesn't mean it's just a LINUX shell. Eric mentioned in the past that DOS does not have the sub-systems to allow multiple programs to read/write to the NIC at the same time and to be able to queue them. In my view, this makes WfW a different o/s. Windows 3.11 (WFW) stopped using DOS for file i/o, Exactly, but how did they invent new I/O that didn't rely on DOS? Does Windows make calls direct to the hardware interrupts? but still made pretty heavy use of DOS for other operating system functions. Yes. Windows wasn't so much an operating system as an extension that leveraged DOS to do most of the behind the scenes work. That's what Ray means with just a shell. OK, let's agree it's just a shell for a minute; why would anyone want to start it from within FreeDOS? In my view, it's a total mismatch. FreeDOS doesn't pretend to be a prot-mode o/s and anyway it runs much better in real mode at the moment. If it's going to a 32/64 bit prot-mode o/s then really it's time to forget the whole legacy thing and just create a next generation 64bit command line o/s that supports endless memory, multi-processors, multi-tasking, firmware BIOS, native SCSI, NTFS, NFS, KERBEROS and SMB signing. -- Gerry Hickman (London UK) Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Gerry Hickman wrote: OK, let's agree it's just a shell for a minute; why would anyone want to start it from within FreeDOS? First, do you actually except that you cannot boot any Win 3x, including 3.11. You have to boot something else first and then run Win 3x as an app. People who were serious about Win 3x put a line at the end of autoexec.bat to run Windows (Win). For Win 9x MS essentially did that for us. People have pulled the shell off of Win 9x. And, as I recall, they ran it on DRDOS. Don't quote me on that, it was a long time ago. I ran Win 3.0 and later 3.11 for WG. I skipped MSDOS 4 and bought MSDOS 5 when it came out. Three months later DRDOS 6 came out with interactive configuration files, I bought that and it has been the only DOS I have used until recently when I have tried FreeDOS. So, I have never run W3x on anything but DRDOS. I assume it would run on FR. I stopped using W3x when I got OS/2, which has W3x support. In my view, it's a total mismatch. FreeDOS doesn't pretend to be a prot-mode o/s DRDOS has DPMI. I assume FD could if it doesn't. For what this is worth, I am able to get FreeDOS with the Q stuff to run on newer MBs - AMD 64 -that fail with DRDOS. They don't like EMM386; DR or FD. I have tried some hybrids - DR plus Q - with limited success. and anyway it runs much better in real mode at the moment. If it's going to a 32/64 bit prot-mode o/s then really it's time to forget the whole legacy thing and just create a next generation 64bit command line o/s that supports endless memory, multi-processors, multi-tasking, firmware BIOS, native SCSI, NTFS, NFS, KERBEROS and SMB signing. 64 bit is a bit of a jump, but if you will settle for 32 bit - for now - I think we did most of that, it's called OS/2, now marketed as eCommStation. You have your choice of Cmd line or GUI interface. Ray Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Hi Ray, with it's own bootsector and startup files? You've then got the HIMEM, EMM386 and IFSHLP to worry about. No, it is just a shell. What do you mean by just a shell? I don't use it any more but I still have the batch file to run it. In one of my older machines it was run from autoexec.bat. The line is still there but remed. You mean you booted into MS-DOS 6.22 and then started WfW from within DOS 6.22? If so, I have to ask why?? -- Gerry Hickman (London UK) Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Gerry Hickman wrote: Hi Ray, with it's own bootsector and startup files? You've then got the HIMEM, EMM386 and IFSHLP to worry about. No, it is just a shell. What do you mean by just a shell? I don't use it any more but I still have the batch file to run it. In one of my older machines it was run from autoexec.bat. The line is still there but remed. You mean you booted into MS-DOS 6.22 and then started WfW from within DOS 6.22? If so, I have to ask why?? That's actually how Windows 1.x-3.x worked ... technically, Win95/98 also worked a similar way, but Microsoft kind of changed things to make it not so obvious. For Windows 3.11 (WFW) you boot into DOS, then you run win to start Windows. Think of Windows as being just like Norton File Commander, or MS-DOS DOSSHELL. While Windows had its own device drivers and executable file format, Win 1.x-3.0 still used MS-DOS for all basic operations. Windows just sat on top of DOS and managed the multitasking. Windows 3.11 (WFW) stopped using DOS for file i/o, but still made pretty heavy use of DOS for other operating system functions. Windows wasn't so much an operating system as an extension that leveraged DOS to do most of the behind the scenes work. That's what Ray means with just a shell. -- I'm sorry my president's an idiot. I didn't vote for him. Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Gerry Hickman wrote: Hi, Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't WfW a different operating system with it's own bootsector and startup files? You've then got the HIMEM, EMM386 and IFSHLP to worry about. Isn't it a bit like saying why can't I start OS/2 from within CP/M? No, it is just a shell. I don't use it any more but I still have the batch file to run it. In one of my older machines it was run from autoexec.bat. The line is still there but remed. Ray Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Jim Hall wrote: *Almost fully compatible with MS-DOS* (?) LOL, what about the fact it's 100 times better and more modern than MS-DOS?!? -- Gerry Hickman (London UK) Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
Yet, without much modification to the configuration of the system, and grabbing some proprietary utils, it cannot run Windows for Workgroups... It is better, I agree, but to be fully compatible, it should run one of the most complex apps out of the box, which is Windows for Workgroups 3.11.On 7/3/06, Gerry Hickman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Hall wrote: *Almost fully compatible with MS-DOS* (?)LOL, what about the fact it's 100 times better and more modern thanMS-DOS?!?--Gerry Hickman (London UK)Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easierDownload IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642___Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.0 in the news...
At 04:39 PM 7/3/2006 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: Yet, without much modification to the configuration of the system, and grabbing some proprietary utils, it cannot run Windows for Workgroups... It is better, I agree, but to be fully compatible, it should run one of the most complex apps out of the box, which is Windows for Workgroups 3.11. An excellent FreeDOS 2.0 goal, so that no one need feel complacent or that all the good stuff has already been done in 1.0. 1.5 goal, even. Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
