Hi all,
Sorry I've been away and missed this. I'm in grad school, which
unfortunately takes up a lot of my available time.
I'm going to skip the rest of the thread, and just mention I'm going
to update the text in question with a statement like what Eric
suggested. It still highlights the FreeDOS
Hi !
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:29:38 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
> MS-DOS / Win9x forced you to install in the very beginning
> of the hard drive.
Uh ? What have you been smoking ? (smile)... MS-DOS will happily install to any
primary partition on the first HD - and boot itself from the standard MBR, n
> Where neither source mentioned that there was anything "proved in
> court", as there was never a trial on that matter.
Right, it wasn't. So the rumour part was _only_ the mention of "proved in
court", which it didn't quite reach. But it isn't a rumour at all that
MS-DOS 7 and 8 were unnecess
At 03:26 PM 9/18/2012, C. Masloch wrote:
> >> >>Again, this was purely marketing, not technical, as MS wanted to
> >> >>exclusively bundle their DOS with Windows. With (very creaky) shims,
> >> >>DR-DOS was said to be able to boot Win95 (and proved such in court),
> >> >
> >> > Where and when was t
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:26 PM, C. Masloch wrote:
>
> In x86 Windows NT, 16-bit subsystems known as NTVDM and WOW are enabled by
> default, but they seem to be separated more clearly from the main (32-bit)
> system.
NT was supposedly designed to be portable (and 32-bit, i.e. no "real"
DOS)
I think what you're all forgetting is that Apple developed all of this
technology, and will be suing all parties involved, very soon. :-)
Rich...
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all
Hi again,:-)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 02:25 PM 9/18/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>
>> >>Again, this was purely marketing, not technical, as MS wanted to
>> >>exclusively bundle their DOS with Windows. With (very creaky) shims,
>> >>DR-DOS was said to be able to boot
>> >>Again, this was purely marketing, not technical, as MS wanted to
>> >>exclusively bundle their DOS with Windows. With (very creaky) shims,
>> >>DR-DOS was said to be able to boot Win95 (and proved such in court),
>> >
>> > Where and when was that? This lawsuit was never brought to trial in
>>
At 02:25 PM 9/18/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
> >>Again, this was purely marketing, not technical, as MS wanted to
> >>exclusively bundle their DOS with Windows. With (very creaky) shims,
> >>DR-DOS was said to be able to boot Win95 (and proved such in court),
> >
> > Where and when was that? This lawsuit
> I think it still did use DOS file system calls, but I could be wrong.
It circumvented DOS for higher performance if no DOS software was
intercepting or handling the FS and block device functions (from DOS Int21
API through DOS block device down to ROM-BIOS Int13 API), at Windows
start-up.
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 01:29 PM 9/18/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>>
>>Again, this was purely marketing, not technical, as MS wanted to
>>exclusively bundle their DOS with Windows. With (very creaky) shims,
>>DR-DOS was said to be able to boot Win95 (and proved suc
At 01:29 PM 9/18/2012, Rugxulo wrote:
>(I hate legalese, so I dislike bringing this up, but ...)
>
>Again, this was purely marketing, not technical, as MS wanted to
>exclusively bundle their DOS with Windows. With (very creaky) shims,
>DR-DOS was said to be able to boot Win95 (and proved such in co
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Bret Johnson wrote:
>
> The are only a few practical differences between Windows 9x
> and similar DOS applications. The first is that Windows 9x comes
> with a version of DOS that has special enhancements the Windows
> application requires to operate properl
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM, C. Masloch wrote:
>> On a semi-related note, I think you can boot Win 3.x inside DOSEMU,
>> DOSBox, etc.
>
> This is irrelevant to DOS compatibility when booting a DOS inside any of
> them.
I was referring mainly to the fact that DOSBox somehow managed to cod
> On a semi-related note, I think you can boot Win 3.x inside DOSEMU,
> DOSBox, etc. Even Mike Chambers' Fake86 can (mostly) boot it. There
> may even be some experimental support on some of those for booting
> Win9x, but since that's uninteresting to me, I've never delved deeper.
This is irreleva
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 04:48 PM 9/17/2012, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>
>>Granted, I am a media professional, so facts especially n the Internet
>>are important.
>>the fact is ms dos 7.1 under wind 98 had fat 32, even Dr dos in 99 has it.
>
> The fact is that th
Perhaps just semantics, but I never considered Windows 9x to be "Operating
Systems" -- I consider them to be "Operating Environments" just like the
previous versions of Windows call themselves (3.x & earlier). Windows 9x isn't
conceptually much different than GEM or GEOS or similar DOS applicat
Hi! Maybe
> "unlike the old ms dos, freedos lets you access fat 32 file systems"
could be extended into:
"unlike the old ms dos, freedos lets you access fat 32 file systems,
a feature which ms only offered bundled with windows 95 and newer"
or a bit less extended:
"unlike the old ms dos*, fre
Hi Karen,
> I can assure you that none of the computers I have running this
> system know the difference as to official or not. They boot as
> ms dos, function as ms dos, perhaps a touch better, and remain
> solid for me as ms dos.
If you don't have appropriate Windows' license, you are using
At 08:45 PM 9/17/2012, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>You are too funny!
>consult the rest of the thread.
For exactly what?
Ralf
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security
You are too funny!
consult the rest of the thread.
As for Dr dos, many sites would dispute this, but that is beyond the
scope of this discussion.
Karen
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 04:48 PM 9/17/2012, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>> Granted, I am a media professional, so facts especia
At 04:48 PM 9/17/2012, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>Granted, I am a media professional, so facts especially n the Internet
>are important.
>the fact is ms dos 7.1 under wind 98 had fat 32, even Dr dos in 99 has it.
The fact is that there never was a "MS-DOS 7.1", it just happened
that the underlying DO
Hi Chris,
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, C. Masloch wrote:
>
>> for my part, the edition of ms dos 7 i run was packaged by developers
>> much like yourselves.
>
> I maybe would personally prefer not to be compared to them.
Smiles, I can respect that. Integrity of course, especially as I am not
totally
> still the point is as you shared yourself, "might be understood " to mean
> older stand alone ms dos, it might not as well. be understood..that is.
I agree.
> for my part, the edition of ms dos 7 i run was packaged by developers
> much like yourselves.
I maybe would personally prefer not
Chris,
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, C. Masloch wrote:
>
> This does not accurately describe the technical circumstances.
>
> If we were to discuss LFNs, in that case the MS-Windows-bundled DOS
> versions alone did indeed only provide rudimentary help and application
> support, with the important core LF
Hi Chris,
Thanks for including the entire passage.
still the point is as you shared yourself, "might be understood " to mean
older stand
alone ms dos, it might not as well.
be understood..that is.
Why showcase what is subject to misinterpretation when their are aspects,
you bring up another s
Granted, I am a media professional, so facts especially n the Internet
are important.
the fact is ms dos 7.1 under wind 98 had fat 32, even Dr dos in 99 has it.
if freedos wants to suggest that it is distinctive from older editions of
dos, especially if fat 32 did not exist inf freedos circle 1
> Yes, Win95 OSR (or whatever) introduced FAT32 later on, but it wasn't
> in DOS per se,
This does not accurately describe the technical circumstances.
If we were to discuss LFNs, in that case the MS-Windows-bundled DOS
versions alone did indeed only provide rudimentary help and application
s
> why does the line
> "unlike the old ms dos freedos lets you access fat 32 file systems"
> appear?
> fat 32 file systems existed in ms dos about 1997 or so.
> I have fat 32 partitions on my ms dos system in fact, and there is no
> windows on my computer whatsoever.
> While there are likely many th
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Karen Lewellen
wrote:
>
> all the talk about the site motivated me to take a quick look.
> why does the line
> "unlike the old ms dos freedos lets you access fat 32 file systems"
> appear?
> fat 32 file systems existed in ms dos about 1997 or so.
> I have fat
30 matches
Mail list logo
