Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

 > NTVDM Compatibility and quality problems aside, WinNT+'s NTVDM only supports (subset of) DOS programs designed for the standard IBM PC with limited hardware configurations. On the other hand, DOSBox(-X) goes way beyond this, for example, allowing to emulate another full DOS-based PC,

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

> The 32-bit WinNT one can't: it's a sort of VM, containing a DOS emulator. > The reason the NT one isn't very good is the reason that NT was a successful > product: because it isolates apps from the hardware, making it more reliable > and allowing SMP and things. The root reason is that WinNT

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

Hello, On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 12:00, Liam Proven wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 01:34, Wengier W via Freedos-user > wrote: > > > > The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge > differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's > NTVDM. > >

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

>> The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge >> differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's >> NTVDM. > Well, yes. The Win9x DOS prompt is real DOS running on a real DOS > kernel which can access hardware. Well, no. The Win9x DOS

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 01:34, Wengier W via Freedos-user wrote: > > The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge > differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's > NTVDM. Well, yes. The Win9x DOS prompt is real DOS running on a real DOS

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

Hello, > I am puzzled: I mean, XP can run DOS programs directly, without assistance, can't it? The apparent problems are the compatibility and quality. There are huge differences between Windows 9x's MS-DOS prompt and (32-bit) Windows XP's NTVDM. Even OS/2's MVDM did a much better job than XP's

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:15:32 +0200 Aitor Santamaría wrote: > Yes, on 32-bit versions of Windows (and I think this applies to > Windws > Vista/7 at least), there used to be the NTVDM that can run DOS > programs fairly well. > I used to test FD-KEYB there quite a lot, as in case it locks the >

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

Hello. On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 11:05, Liam Proven wrote: > I am puzzled: I mean, XP can run DOS programs directly, without > assistance, can't it? > > Yes, on 32-bit versions of Windows (and I think this applies to Windws Vista/7 at least), there used to be the NTVDM that can run DOS programs

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 07:13, Wengier W via Freedos-user wrote: > > DOSBox-X's Windows XP support has been there for a long time, which will > benefit those who use it (original DOSBox also supports it). I think the > pixel-perfect mode patch which you implemented still works too, so that those

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

Hi Anton, DOSBox-X's Windows XP support has been there for a long time, which will benefit those who use it (original DOSBox also supports it). I think the pixel-perfect mode patch which you implemented still works too, so that those who use Windows XP (or higher) can enjoy it as well. Wengier

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

Wengier Wu: > Yes, most 32-bit Windows builds of DOSBox-X can run on > Windows XP. DOSBox-X also has DOS builds for running in > DOS itself (so that you can emulate a different DOS system > for example). As happy user of Windows XP, and am very glad that you keep support of this last sane

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

Tanks all for answer Il gio 4 ago 2022, 20:23 Wengier Wu via Freedos-user < freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> ha scritto: > Hi Gabriele, > > Yes, most 32-bit Windows builds of DOSBox-X can run on Windows XP. > DOSBox-X also has DOS builds for running in DOS itself (so that you can > emulate a

Re: [Freedos-user] DosBox-x Windows XP

DosBox-x is compatible in XP and I use it quite a bit to test stuff and work on projects along with FreeDOS. I haven’t yet found any issues runnin it. Even installed and ran Windows 98 as well. ___ Freedos-user mailing list

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

Hi, On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 9:38 AM Gabriele Barbone wrote: > > Hi dosbox-x can run on Windows XP SP3? I have a old pc Not sure, I think?? they still provide XP-compatible versions alongside newer Windows versions. BUT! It does run atop FreeDOS with the included HX files. ;-) (quoting the

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

Hi Gabriele, Yes, most 32-bit Windows builds of DOSBox-X can run on Windows XP. DOSBox-X also has DOS builds for running in DOS itself (so that you can emulate a different DOS system for example). The most recent version of DOSBox-X is now 0.84.2 / 2022.08.0, which (among other things) added

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox-x update available

Hi dosbox-x can run on Windows XP SP3? I have a old pc Il ven 8 lug 2022, 15:10 Eric Auer ha scritto: > > Forwarding from BTTR - the release notes are indeed worth reading :-) > After CandyMan found a problem with NDN (Necromancer's Dos Navigator), > Wengier provided an updated

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

On Mar 27 2020 11:37, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On 27/03/2020 11:25, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: >> Yes, FreeDOS tends to be growing, which makes sense. For old computers, >> original to that time, EDR-DOS might be a better choice. > > Or you might try some minimalistic FreeDOS distribution

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

Hi! On Mar 27 2020 04:57, Rugxulo wrote: > XP is dead as a doornail (since 2014), so is even Win7 nowadays. No > more security fixes. Those old cpus (and even modern ones) all have > vulnerabilities and various software workarounds, plus microcode > updates, which each have different costs

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

On 27/03/2020 11:25, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: Yes, FreeDOS tends to be growing, which makes sense. For old computers, original to that time, EDR-DOS might be a better choice. Or you might try some minimalistic FreeDOS distribution tailored specifically for the truly ancient machines.

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

Hi! On Mar 27 2020 05:14, Rugxulo wrote: > I only have DR-DOS 7.03, but AFAIK, DR-DOS 5 was compatible to MS-DOS > 3.3, DR 6 was their 5, and 7 was (of course) 6 compatible (though it > pretended to be PC-DOS, technically, unless you specifically asked > elsewhere). > > So, yes, FreeDOS should be

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Mar 27 2020 04:49, Rugxulo wrote: > Niklaus Wirth wrote "A Plea for Lean Software" back in 1995. He > obviously was referring to his [quasi open source] OberonOS with > compiler and tools. I don't think most people took his advice. He has > had a lot of good ideas over the years, but as even he

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

Hi, On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:25 AM Louis Santillan wrote: > > These days, it several MBs more than 8MB, but, TinyCoreLinux [0][1] is > a RAMDisk based Linux that requires less than 48MB.Earlier > versions ran on far less and even offered network connected, command > line versions running

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

Hi, On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 7:56 AM Mateusz Viste wrote: > > On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: > > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. > > Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ: > > "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM. > (...)

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

Hi, On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:43 AM wrote: > > The fun fact: Windows XP SP2 on this 2007-machine with 4 GB RAM and HDD > is up and running as fast as Windows 10 or Linux on my 2018 Ryzen with > 32 GB RAM and SSD! XP is dead as a doornail (since 2014), so is even Win7 nowadays. No more security

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

Hi, On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:43 AM wrote: > > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. Linux started in 1991 on a 386 with 2 MB of RAM. Granted, newer releases need a tad more. ;-) While outdated (and I'm no expert), for future reference, here's some lightweight Linux

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

These days, it several MBs more than 8MB, but, TinyCoreLinux [0][1] is a RAMDisk based Linux that requires less than 48MB.Earlier versions ran on far less and even offered network connected, command line versions running in under 16MB of RAM on i486DX or better [2]. Even a mildly loaded i486DX

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Mar 25 2020 18:21, andrew fabbro wrote: > Of course, you're comparing a 20-year-old distro with a 30-year-old > "distro" of DOS :-) > > You get more functionality in a mid-90s Linux than a late-80s DOS. Actually, DOS had a lot to offer. On such a machine it was quite fast, compared to a Unix

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX Isn´t for everyone (off-topic remark)

On Mar 25 2020 18:51, Jose Antonio Senna wrote: > Today userbeit...@abwesend.de (Robinson West ?) said: > >> Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. > About 1998 I did run (plod was a better description) > Red Hat 5.0 (kernel 2.0.32) in a 486 DX-50 with 4 MB > of RAM, but

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:08 AM ZB wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote: > > > On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: > > > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. > > > > Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ: > > > > "Debian Linux

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On 25/03/2020 14:07, ZB wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote: On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ: "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: > > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. > > Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ: > > "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM.

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ: "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM. (...) An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Mar 25 2020 01:36, Rugxulo wrote: > I heard that XP was designed to get to the desktop in 30 secs. Not > necessarily responsive nor able to be used just yet, but at least it > would show up (in optimal conditions). Of course, that was P3/P4 > (single core) era. > > Of course, nowadays we have

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

Hi! On Mar 25 2020 at 01:28, andrew fabbro wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:52 PM wrote: > >> Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos >> on. Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is >> going to be pretty have for that machine.

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 8:21 PM, Robert Riebisch wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > > Mind - although I still have both 430CDS' in storage for uncompleted > > project updates, I had to wave the white flag on productively using Puppy > > for kids use, on those particular specs. What worked best in it

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

Hi Andrew, > Mind - although I still have both 430CDS' in storage for uncompleted project > updates, I had to wave the white flag on productively using Puppy for kids > use, on those particular specs. What worked best in it was a 2GB sd-card with > FreeDOS 1.1 configured to boot up Ronald

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

I spent two years in Papua New Guinea in the mid 1980s using (and developing on and for) an Altos 8000-10 using MP/M II. Mostly CB-80 with bits of assembler. Interesting/fun times. > Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Totally agree with that. Bruce.

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 15:53 (UTC-0400): > Felix Miata wrote: >> I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I >> couldn't tell >> any difference from SysV. > With what sort of hardware? Based on the descriptions on

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 21:59 (UTC-0400): > SeaMonkey 2.X couldn't be built static. Please reconcile this statement with the Mozilla folk's representation that every binary app downloadable from mozilla.org, including all SeaMonkey versions, is static built. -- Evolution as taught in

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 8:37 PM Rugxulo wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM dmccunney wrote: > > > > The person who passed it on said [Transmeta Crusoe] was "Slow, slow, SLOW". > > No surprise - it came with WindowsXP SP2, and took *8* minutes to simply > > *boot*, and a lot more to do

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On 3/24/2020 12:53 PM, dmccunney wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Felix Miata wrote: I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I couldn't tell any difference from SysV. With what sort of hardware? Xenix, if memory serves, began based on Unix System III and was

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:52 PM wrote: > Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos > on. Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is > going to be pretty have for that machine. Some people aren't grabbing a > multi core modern computer

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

Hi, On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM dmccunney wrote: > > The person who passed it on said [Transmeta Crusoe] was "Slow, slow, SLOW". > No surprise - it came with WindowsXP SP2, and took *** minutes to simply > *boot*, and a lot more to do anything once up. I heard that XP was designed to get

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 3:30 AM, dmccunney wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:52 PM wrote: > > > >... Puppy Linux is designed for older, less powerful hardware. (A poster > on the Puppy forums described creating a dedicated media server based > on Puppy that ran on an ancient Toshiba laptop

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Felix Miata wrote: > dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400): > > mich...@robinson-west.com wrote: > > >> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. > > > *Unix* didn't run on a 286. There were a couple of attempts > > (including one from AT) that died

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020, Felix Miata wrote: dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400): mich...@robinson-west.com wrote: Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. *Unix* didn't run on a 286. There were a couple of attempts (including one from AT) that died horribly due to lack of

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400): > mich...@robinson-west.com wrote: >> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. > *Unix* didn't run on a 286. There were a couple of attempts > (including one from AT) that died horribly due to lack of HW memory > management. It only became

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:52 PM wrote: > > Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos on. > Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is going > to be pretty have for that machine. I run an Android port of DOSbox on an older and less

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...

Hi, On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:52 PM wrote: > > Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos on. > Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is going > to be pretty have for that machine. Obviously, but my own Pentium 4 from 2002 (mostly)

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBox I/O issue follow-up

The workaround is easy, you just read from STDIN as a file with DOS FN 0x3F. The other is supposed to work and this is a little more code. But, who is complaining. :) -- Transform Data into Opportunity. Accelerate data

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBox I/O issue follow-up

Sorry, minor correction on results. > On Mar 22, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Jerome Shidel wrote: > > Hello Eric (and anyone else who is interested), > > Here is a little proof-of-concept demonstration of the issue regarding I/O > redirection in DOSBox. > > ; begin example code > >

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Thomas Mueller mueller6...@twc.com wrote: from dmccunney and Ralf Quint: You may want to look at vDOS instead. vDOS is a fork of DOSBox, specifically intended to run character mode DOS business apps on Windows. See https://sourceforge.net/projects/vdos/

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox

from dmccunney and Ralf Quint: You may want to look at vDOS instead. vDOS is a fork of DOSBox, specifically intended to run character mode DOS business apps on Windows. See https://sourceforge.net/projects/vdos/ +1 vDOS is a much better choice than DOSBox if you do not intend to run

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rinaldo Guelpa guelpa...@telkomsa.net wrote: Hello Friends, I wish to use the dosbox in an 2.5 gig computer to run some text based programs I am not into games. Which programs? Can someone help me please help. I wish to use the windows screanreader if

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox

On 1/30/2015 7:43 AM, dmccunney wrote: On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rinaldo Guelpa guelpa...@telkomsa.net wrote: Hello Friends, I wish to use the dosbox in an 2.5 gig computer to run some text based programs I am not into games. Which programs? Can someone help me please help. I wish

Re: [Freedos-user] dosbox

Hello, DOSbox is known for not working well with screenreaders. I have tried two of them (Habla and ASAP) with a real hardware Braille ’n Speak 2000 as a synthesizer, and both work only in review mode and make the DOS computer emit a constant buzz from the virtual PC speaker. I recommend using

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSbox vs Freedos

I'm a bit confused. I use DOSbox but i have timing issues in MIDI. Was thinking of using DOS 6.22, but then saw FreeDos. What reasons might I chose one over the other? Does FreeDos work under XP or needs to be booted separately? My music app needs an mup401 or a serial port, so that's

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSbox vs Freedos

At 4/16/2007 06:44 p, you wrote: Hi Dennis, Dosbox normally uses a built-in simulation of DOS, not a real separate DOS. For sound in DOS boxes, I think there was something called NTVDM. If you have Linux, you should use Dosemu, which is a virtual PC specialized for running DOS fast. You can

Re: [Freedos-user] DOSbox vs Freedos

Hi Dennis, Dosbox normally uses a built-in simulation of DOS, not a real separate DOS. For sound in DOS boxes, I think there was something called NTVDM. If you have Linux, you should use Dosemu, which is a virtual PC specialized for running DOS fast. You can boot a real DOS in recent Dosbox