Re: [Freedos-user] aimed compatibility?
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 separate DOSLFN driver with different license. This does not include Windows compatibility. Regarding Windows 3.x FreeDOS (with unstable kernel) tries to be either 6.22 or 7.10 Actually this is not even a default part of the unstable branch, you have to enable it with a compile time option so you could call it even more unstable. or (with stable kernel) a mix of 3.xx and either 6.22 or 7.10, which seems to work not so well. Actually only standard mode works well (WIN /S) which is crippled (a sort of safe mode) in WfW 3.11. You should not use EMM386 if your Windows config is one that tries to take over EMS services because that take over only works with GEMMIS compatible EMM386. Note that Windows 3.x only supports at most 256 MB RAM and no LBA / FAT32, but you can work around by config (disable Windows disk access drivers and change the RAM/swap overcommit from default 4 to 1). Then it can work with FAT32 / LBA and up to 1 GB RAM. If you have more, you have to tell HIMEM/EMM386 to hide the rest. Eric -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] aimed compatibility?
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 FAT32, but I do not think that we want to be very Just a bit compatible? MS Win98 DOS 7 compatible as this DOS was not even meant to run DOS apps anyway. It was. As Microsoft had shown with MS-DOS 8 they were able to (and did) disable the DOS mode of Windows 4.x later. So MS-DOS 7 (both versions) were meant to run DOS software. Why does this question matter, anyway? Late DOS apps were written with FAT32 and/or LFN support aimed exactly at MS-DOS 7. The authors probably didn't care whether this MS-DOS was intended to be DOS. It worked well being exactly this. So if you ask me: Our current goal is compatibility with MS DOS 5 / 6 kernel in the general case and a nice collection of apps similar to MS DOS 6... Plus support for new hardware in ways which may (FAT32, LBA) but do not need to be compatible to Win DOS 7. Might be coincidence that the DPB layout of MS-DOS 7 and FAT32 DOS-C is the same. Or that the same new, complicated FAT32 Int21 functions are supported. Or that DOSLFN services exactly the LFN functions used by MS-DOS 7 COMMAND.COM versions. Regards, Christian -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] aimed compatibility?
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 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
and
' make as many programs happy as possible, given our
limited time/effort/motivation/whatever '
so Win3.1 was never implemented, as we were not interested in Win3.1
if YOU think LFN support in the kernel would be interesting, sit down
and make it. everybody else will have to use DOSLFN...
So if you ask me: Our current goal is compatibility
with MS DOS 5 / 6 kernel in the general case and a
nice collection of apps similar to MS DOS 6... Plus
support for new hardware in ways which may (FAT32,
LBA) but do not need to be compatible to Win DOS 7.
the next goal will be GPT compatibility for 2+ TB support.
Might be coincidence that the DPB layout of MS-DOS 7 and FAT32 DOS-C is
the same. Or that the same new, complicated FAT32 Int21 functions are
supported. Or that DOSLFN services exactly the LFN functions used by
MS-DOS 7 COMMAND.COM versions.
I would call that 'hard work', noy just 'coincidence' ;)
Tom
--
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] aimed compatibility?
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
Yes. I noted that in my first reply of this thread.
if YOU think LFN support in the kernel would be interesting, sit down
and make it. everybody else will have to use DOSLFN...
To whom in particular did you write this? I'm of your opinion, too.
I would call that 'hard work', noy just 'coincidence' ;)
Yes. Yes, it was work. Work to make FreeDOS compatible with MS-DOS 7
(Eric's so-called Win DOS). Contrary to Eric's statement it seems that
it needed to be compatible; or why else would you work for it?
EA:
Plus support for new hardware in ways which may (FAT32,
LBA) but do not need to be compatible to Win DOS 7.
Regards,
Christian
--
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] aimed compatibility?
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.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] aimed compatibility?
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 are very useful so we aimed for 5.0 kernel compatibility. Remember that 5.0 and 6.22 basically have the same kernel. The 5.0 aim also meant that we did not need the extra apps that MS bought (not developed) to make 6.22 more fancy, but later we added much of that functionality nevertheless, e.g. DEFRAG... Now we also have LBA and FAT32, but I do not think that we want to be very MS Win98 DOS 7 compatible as this DOS was not even meant to run DOS apps anyway. So if you ask me: Our current goal is compatibility with MS DOS 5 / 6 kernel in the general case and a nice collection of apps similar to MS DOS 6... Plus support for new hardware in ways which may (FAT32, LBA) but do not need to be compatible to Win DOS 7. Note that we also have apps in our distro which have very little to do with what MS DOS tried to sell you when MS DOS 5, 6 or 7 were on the market. Eric :-) -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] aimed compatibility?
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 FreeDOS mostly aims to be compatible to 7.10. This does not include Windows compatibility. Regarding Windows 3.x FreeDOS (with unstable kernel) tries to be either 6.22 or 7.10 or (with stable kernel) a mix of 3.xx and either 6.22 or 7.10, which seems to work not so well. Windows 4.x doesn't run on FreeDOS. Regards, Christian -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
