Hi Christian,
> 6.22 doesn't include LBA, FAT32 and LFN-aware command line,
> so FreeDOS mostly aims to be compatible to 7.10.
I would not count in strict numbers here - for me, it
is okay to say "5.0 with several 6.22ish tools and the
7.10ish features of LBA and FAT32". Note that LFN is
in the
> the goal followed by the kernel programmers was
>
> both
> ' make as many programs happy as possible. if we have to decide which
>DOS version to follow, take the younger one. '
> some (very few) internal ('undocumented') data structures changed
> between 3.x and 5.x; we took 5.x format
>> Originally it was 3.3
>> ...
>> Later we got UMB
> and HMA
>> which are very useful so
>> we aimed for 5.0 kernel compatibility. Remember
>> that 5.0 and 6.22 basically have the same kernel.
> Just "a bit" compatible?
yes and no. and irrelevant.
the goal followed by the kernel programmers wa
> Originally it was 3.3 because that was a version
> which worked with most apps and still relatively
> simple. Later we got UMB
and HMA
> which are very useful so
> we aimed for 5.0 kernel compatibility. Remember
> that 5.0 and 6.22 basically have the same kernel.
> Now we also have LBA and FAT
> Which kind of compatibility does FreeDOS aim for? I mean compatible with
> which MS-DOS version? 6.22, 7.10, 8.00?
As far as I can tell, 8.00 is the same as 7.10 plus some restrictions (I
used to have a PC with Windows Me). 6.22 doesn't include LBA, FAT32 and
LFN-aware command line, so FreeD
Hi, just giving my personal experience here...
> Which kind of compatibility does FreeDOS aim for?
> I mean compatible with which MS-DOS version? 6.22,
> 7.10, 8.00?
Originally it was 3.3 because that was a version
which worked with most apps and still relatively
simple. Later we got UMB which a
Which kind of compatibility does FreeDOS aim for? I mean compatible with
which MS-DOS version? 6.22, 7.10, 8.00?
-mr
--
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourcefo
