Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 feature, and makes clear that this wasn't available in regular old MS-DOS. :-) -jh On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Eric Auer wrote: > > 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" -- How fast is your code? 3 out of 4 devs don\\\'t know how their code performs in production. Find out how slow your code is with AppDynamics Lite. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;262219672;13503038;z? http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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, no hacking required, provided its partition is active of course. With a little hokus-pokus and alternative boot loaders, MS-DOS could also be persuaded to boot from other kind of partitions (secondary and/or patitions residing on a second disk). I presume you Rugxulo knew this and just were momentarily confused. Or did you mean to say something else, maybe that in default installations, starting from a blank hard disk MS-DOS would end up in the beginning of the disk ? Duh! Anyway, someone had to point this out "for the record". -- Czerno -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
> 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 unnecessarily tied to MS Windows 4.
Regarding that, more of the sources specify in detail that Caldera showed
(and even some of Microsoft's developers that worked on MS Windows 4 and
MS-DOS 7 explained/agreed) that both of them could very easily have been
separated:
http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/tech.html (lots of details)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/600488.stm (mentions settlement that
instead happened, and "Caldera was able to demonstrate publicly Windows 95
running with DR-DOS", and "it was thought unlikely that Microsoft would
win because of the strength of the evidence that Caldera had partially
disclosed")
> There was an out-of-court settlement before it came to a trial, which
> beside apparently putting some money in Caldera's
It is right that the settlement occurred instead.
> robs us now to actual see what was claimed and what in fact the ties
> between Windows 95 and DOS at that point was...
Even as we don't have the implementation, the first source above does
specify a lot of details.
And here's a less official, though also interesting source: a post
authored by Matthias Paul on 2007-12-18. It also has some technical
comments:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/109018-windows-98-in-dr-dos/page__view__findpost__p__721209
MP> [...] "WinGlue" basically just faked a number of undocumented
MP> interfaces and data structures, [...] it was decided to fork
MP> the kernel and directly add full MS-DOS 7.0 (and later 7.1)
MP> support into the DR-DOS kernel. The DOS 7 compatible fork was
MP> nicknamed DR-DOS "WinBolt" [...]
So, WinGlue ("Scheibenkleister") was a basic device driver to make MS
Windows 4 load, and WinBolt was a 7.02-ish fork of the kernel to fully
support the new interfaces. The post also acknowledges that a different
fork went on to be released as 7.03.
> Rather to the contrary, if it would be that close, thunking should
> not be necessary in the first place (or to a far lesser extend).
Without the parenthetical remark, you would be incorrect, because at least
pointers/buffers do have to be translated or made compatible somehow, no
matter how close the systems are [unless hypothetically the 32-bit APIs
artificially were limited to only using 16-bit registers and pointers].
> And the issue of "16 bit thunking in Windows 95" ran itself out
> after more and more programs where specifically written for Win32
> instead of relying on old Windows 3.x 16bit code/DLLs.
That's to be expected regardless of thunking details.
Regards,
Chris
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 that? This lawsuit was never brought to trial in > >> > the first place... > >> > >> I don't know all the details, barely any actually. > > > > So why keep spreading such rumors? :-\ > >Sources specified in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS : > >http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/1996865/cebit-caldera-windows-dr-dos-denying-ms-claims >http://www.seattleweekly.com/1998-09-16/news/the-mouse-that-roared/ >(second page) Where neither source mentioned that there was anything "proved in court", as there was never a trial on that matter. There was an out-of-court settlement before it came to a trial, which beside apparently putting some money in Caldera's robs us now to actual see what was claimed and what in fact the ties between Windows 95 and DOS at that point was... > > Why do you think that back in the early days of Windows 95, the > > "16bit thunking" was such a big deal? That wouldn't have been at all > > necessary if Win32 and the old 16bit stuff weren't in effect two > > discrete entities... > >Thunking is just API translation because of different pointer conventions >and such. Sorry, but that isn't the only kind of translation that needs/might have to be done... > Arguably the existence and usage of Windows-4-style thunking >between 32-bit and 16-bit components illustratively shows that Windows 4 >is close to its Windows 3 roots. Rather to the contrary, if it would be that close, thunking should not be necessary in the first place (or to a far lesser extend). And the issue of "16 bit thunking in Windows 95" ran itself out after more and more programs where specifically written for Win32 instead of relying on old Windows 3.x 16bit code/DLLs. >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. Well, as it is a new OS written from scratch, NTVDM was/is simply a replacement for the previously existed DOS at boot time. There is no need for NTVDM for anything but old 16bit DOS/Windows 3.x code and the command prompt for doing shell stuff in NT is not relying on any old 16bit stuff. That's why it is by default invoked by the 32bit cmd.exe instead of the for compatibility's sake still existing 16bit command.com. Ralf -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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) from the ground up, headed by Dave Cutler, former VMS dude. It ran on various architectures initially, but that later wound down to only x86 and Itanium and later x86-64, probably due to economic and marketing reasons. NTVDM was one of many subsystems (OS/2, POSIX, etc) that were supposed to be supported, but obviously it bitrotted quite badly over the years and had many bugs unfixed and even regressions. Honestly, MS actually claims VirtualPC (and the associated "WinXP Mode") for 64-bit is too wimpy for home users, i.e. no decent graphics support, hence it's only available to business licenses and such. (Plus it doubles your hardware requirements.) Or maybe they expect us to migrate to Hyper-V in Win8 (64-bit), who knows. Clearly they have little interest in DOS or Win16 or OS/2 compatibility. They don't want to make the same "mistake" (eh?) that OS/2 did, being too compatible (with DOS and Win16) for its own survival. (Yes, eCS still exists but in limited form, and it's not chiefly supported by IBM since a long time.) They do nowadays support C++ and HTML5 and Javascript as first-class citizens, but it's clear that others are more preferred (C# and pals). -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 Win95 (and proved such in court), >> > >> > Where and when was that? This lawsuit was never brought to trial in >> > the first place... >> >>I don't know all the details, barely any actually. > > So why keep spreading such rumors? :-\ It's not rumors. It's well known (at least to me) that Matthias Paul has done a lot over the years, and he's added a lot of info to various Wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS " Gross also hired Andrew Schulman (who had been, with Geoff Chappell, instrumental in identifying the AARD code in 1992) to work as a consultant and, in Andover, join Paul in his work on "WinGlue", a secret project to create a version of DR-DOS compatible with Windows 95, 98 and 98 SE and replace its MS-DOS 7.xx component.[17] This was demonstrated at CeBIT in March 1998,[17] and later, in a small team, developed into "WinBolt", both versions of DR-DOS, which remained unreleased as of 2011, but played an important role in the court case.[18] " So it's WinGlue I was thinking of, I suppose. Again, you'd have to ask the relevant dudes, not me, for more details. But this particular info is not public knowledge as no public code examples have shown up (AFAIK). >>I think it still did use DOS file system calls, but I could be wrong. >>DOS was not just a glorified boot loader here, it was way more >>interwoven and a hard requirement for this particular OS. You really >>couldn't (AFAICT) run Win95 without DOS, at least without rewriting >>the whole thing. But that's beyond my understanding, so you'd have to >>ask someone more technically inclined (Geoff Chappell ??). > > May I suggest a closer study of works like "Windows 95 Internals" by > Michael Podanoffsky (out of print though according to Amazon, ) or > any other in-depth document about Win32? For someone interested, sure, that would be great. To me, it's a bit moot as I don't care enough to buy the book just for that. (I actually hate buying books, but a few months I did go ahead and finally get Pat's book out of "completeness", even though I have no intention of hacking on the kernel). > Why do you think that back in the early days of Windows 95, the > "16bit thunking" was such a big deal? That wouldn't have been at all > necessary if Win32 and the old 16bit stuff weren't in effect two > discrete entities... 16-bit real mode and 16-bit pmode and 32-bit pmode are all heavily different things, disregarding PAE and all the various additional changes over the years. So yes, it's going to be somewhat different, even under V86, per design. Win 3.0 was the big change with DPMI, which was the underlying basis for Win16 protected mode apps. Win 3.1 wouldn't even run on anything older than a 286, and VCPI was only supported in 286 "standard" mode. With Win 3.11, they went 386+, so of course, tack on Win32s, and you're halfway to Win95 already. I know you know this, and I don't claim to perfectly understand it, just saying ... yes, there's a lot going on, but DOS is still there for good reason, both technically and for compatibility, at least until the 32-bit NT was extended to target home users with WinXP. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
>> >>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 >> > the first place... >> >> I don't know all the details, barely any actually. > > So why keep spreading such rumors? :-\ Sources specified in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS : http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/1996865/cebit-caldera-windows-dr-dos-denying-ms-claims http://www.seattleweekly.com/1998-09-16/news/the-mouse-that-roared/ (second page) > Why do you think that back in the early days of Windows 95, the > "16bit thunking" was such a big deal? That wouldn't have been at all > necessary if Win32 and the old 16bit stuff weren't in effect two > discrete entities... Thunking is just API translation because of different pointer conventions and such. Arguably the existence and usage of Windows-4-style thunking between 32-bit and 16-bit components illustratively shows that Windows 4 is close to its Windows 3 roots. 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. Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 was never brought to trial in > > the first place... > >I don't know all the details, barely any actually. So why keep spreading such rumors? :-\ >I think it still did use DOS file system calls, but I could be wrong. >DOS was not just a glorified boot loader here, it was way more >interwoven and a hard requirement for this particular OS. You really >couldn't (AFAICT) run Win95 without DOS, at least without rewriting >the whole thing. But that's beyond my understanding, so you'd have to >ask someone more technically inclined (Geoff Chappell ??). May I suggest a closer study of works like "Windows 95 Internals" by Michael Podanoffsky (out of print though according to Amazon, ) or any other in-depth document about Win32? Why do you think that back in the early days of Windows 95, the "16bit thunking" was such a big deal? That wouldn't have been at all necessary if Win32 and the old 16bit stuff weren't in effect two discrete entities... Ralf -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
> 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. If it detected any such interception, it would indeed run the affected FS in some sort of compatibility mode where it used the underlying V86 APIs (block devices, Int13) instead of its own ones. This incidentally disabled its LFN functionality for the affected FS. Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 such in court), > > Where and when was that? This lawsuit was never brought to trial in > the first place... I don't know all the details, barely any actually. You'd have to ask Matthias Paul, the expert. All I read was that he worked on WinBolt (or whatever) that patched a few things that made it finally boot atop DR-DOS. Whether it went to trial or not, I don't know. I know there was lots of testimony back in the day, perhaps in the monopoly / anti-competition trial. And Caldera (or whatever was left) did receive a big cash settlement eventually. But I'm no lawyer and don't really actively research legal stuff, so maybe I'm somewhat confused (probably!). > If there were indeed technical reasons or not, Windows 9x/ME used the > DOS it was started from just for the bootstrap process as well as in > the command prompt window once booted. No other part of the OS is > otherwise using any of the "underlying" DOS, it is all handled by the > Win32 system. So Windows 9x/ME is in fact an OS in it's own right, > just like Netware is/was an OS in it's own right, regardless of it > being booted from DOS in the initial phase as well... I think it still did use DOS file system calls, but I could be wrong. DOS was not just a glorified boot loader here, it was way more interwoven and a hard requirement for this particular OS. You really couldn't (AFAICT) run Win95 without DOS, at least without rewriting the whole thing. But that's beyond my understanding, so you'd have to ask someone more technically inclined (Geoff Chappell ??). -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 court), Where and when was that? This lawsuit was never brought to trial in the first place... If there were indeed technical reasons or not, Windows 9x/ME used the DOS it was started from just for the bootstrap process as well as in the command prompt window once booted. No other part of the OS is otherwise using any of the "underlying" DOS, it is all handled by the Win32 system. So Windows 9x/ME is in fact an OS in it's own right, just like Netware is/was an OS in it's own right, regardless of it being booted from DOS in the initial phase as well... >Caldera / Lineo / DeviceLogics / DR-DOS Inc. were the ones selling >7.03 (finalized circa late 1998, early 1999), which I bought online >some years ago. Indeed, it lacked any "kernel" functionality regarding >LFNs or FAT32, hence you were limited to 8 GB (four primary FAT16 >partitions of 2 GB each). And BTW, IIRC that would be 16 kb clusters, >which is incredibly wasteful, blech. Well, 2GB partitions would require 32KB cluster size... (65524 x 32KB = 2096768KB = approx. 2GB) But certainly does no officially released DR-DOS/Novell DOS/OpenDOS/Caldera DR-DOS does support FAT32. As mentioned, this is only possible by using the driver/patch/release of the " The DR-DOS/OpenDOS Enhancement Project " (http://www.drdosprojects.de/) and that in turn is subject to the license agreement of the original (not so) OpenDOS 7.01 sources... Ralf -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 properly. But, it is still a general > purpose DOS that other applications can use -- it isn't a special > version that only works with Windows 9x. Right, but MS was trying to start anew with Win95, esp. after the 1991 split from IBM re: OS/2, hence the new (proprietary) native Win32 API for both console and GUI. (Win32s previously existed but only for limited GUI stuff. DOS was still the console in the older Win 16-bit days.) So it was clearly legacy (as NT took too much RAM, which most people didn't have). Win95 could allegedly run (slowly) on a 4 MB 386 box (though I think most brand new computers at the time were Pentium/60s with 16 MB or similar). A lot of DOS software still worked with Win95, but most people (e.g. id Software, Raven Software) soon switched to Win32 for various reasons (better drivers, esp. networking), not counting the advantage of avoiding NTVDM bugs (e.g. Quake). And MS was clearly pushing Win32 compilers. While it's true that DOS compilers were still being developed and worked on (e.g. DJGPP v2 in 1996), once Win2k (FAT32, DOS LFNs) and WinXP became ubiquitous (circa 2002), NTVDM was the best you could get, which meant buggy but overall "good enough". And even that got worse and worse with even succeeding Windows version, if you were "crazy" enough to not upgrade to the clearly "superior" Win32 (via Cygwin or its offshoot MinGW or otherwise, which eventually eclipsed DJGPP in users). So yeah, people wanted flashier features, easier compatibility, followed latest trends, hence DOS support got weaker and weaker (despite ongoing work with DJGPP and OpenWatcom). Most other DOS compilers gave up the ghost as the API wasn't considered a first-class citizen (or even second-class) anymore (esp. with demand for Unicode support on the rise). I know all that seems off-topic, but that's the real reason that MS dropped DOS support in lieu of Win32. They wanted to "control the standard" (to paraphrase Gordon Letwin). > The second is the OS (DOS) is set up to automatically load > the Windows application. But, you can easily change this > by simply adding a "BootGUI=0" line to the MSDOS.SYS text > configuration file. You can then boot straight to a DOS > command prompt, and run all kinds of DOS applications > other than Windows 9x. If you then decide you want to run > the DOS application called Windows 9x, you can simply type > "WIN" at a DOS command prompt (just like you do with earlier > versions of Windows). This was only until older apps could migrate to the newer API. Similarly with Win2k "Ex" APIs or .NET or Win64 or WinRT or whatever they're pushing nowadays. Back in 1995, not nearly as many Win32 apps existed, so compatibility was important. Similarly with AMD64, there are already efforts to imply that 32-bit is obsolete and that 64-bit is the (exclusive) future, even if it does (for now) support backwards compatibility. > The last significant difference is that you can't just "exit" Windows > 9x and go back to regular DOS again without rebooting. In that > sense, it's a poorly designed application. Most "well-behaved" apps (esp. DPMI) ran both ways. Only ones that needed real mode or VCPI or similar would have to use raw DOS. > Basically, "owning" Windows 9x also means you "own" DOS 7.x, > and you don't need to ever run the Windows application if you > don't want to. They are separate and distinct. Overall, I think > I agree with Karen's assessment. I still have Win95 on 18 (overformatted, 1.6 MB, DMF?) or so floppies. But I doubt it works with my USB floppy drive (at least not in most OSes). But I don't care, I don't want it, I'll "just use FreeDOS." ;-) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 code
up the missing (undocumented) compatibility bits that FreeDOS (maybe?)
lacks ("standard mode only") re: Win16. Nobody outside of "MS-DOS 7.x"
[sic] was ever intended to run the main portion (GUI, drivers, etc) of
the main OS (MS Win95), hence the inherent technical difficulty.
> It'd only be interesting whether DOSBox's built-in DOS is able to
> load (any) MS Windows.
It can, allegedly, but I've never tried. I don't have lots of legacy
Win16 apps that I run (though many old things still exist on Simtel,
etc), and most of my interest is cmdline stuff. Being proprietary also
makes me less interested because it's less useful to most other
people.
> I don't think the FreeDOS kernel does properly boot from (or "install in")
> file systems inside extended partitions. Even if you manage to boot it
> (possibly using GRUB), the kernel probably won't correctly determine the
> "boot drive".
I didn't mean extended partitions but instead a primary partition that
isn't first on the hard drive. You can have up to four primary
partitions, but only the first is bootable by MS-DOS.
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
> 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 irrelevant to DOS compatibility when booting a DOS inside any of them. It'd only be interesting whether DOSBox's built-in DOS is able to load (any) MS Windows. > MS-DOS / Win9x forced you to install in the very beginning of the hard > drive. DR-DOS can install in subsequent partitions but has some weird > limit regarding mounting and seeing previous partitions. FreeDOS is > the most flexible in that it can see and use anything. I don't think the FreeDOS kernel does properly boot from (or "install in") file systems inside extended partitions. Even if you manage to boot it (possibly using GRUB), the kernel probably won't correctly determine the "boot drive". Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 there never was a "MS-DOS 7.1", it just happened > that the underlying DOS mode of Windows 95B intensified itself with > that version. As mentioned, MS-DOS 6.22 was the last official version > of MS-DOS. (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 court), but no such patches were ever officially released. MS didn't really want to encourage competitor DOSes to run Windows. 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. (While I don't personally care for Windows, I do wish FreeDOS had 100% Windows-friendly internals compatibility, but it's not the end of the world, I guess. We'd need more developers to test anyways, and old Windows aren't exactly easily found [or worth the money, perhaps].) > And DR-DOS never officially supported FAT32 either, the last version > of "DR-DOS" was 6.0, released in 1991, followed by Novell DOS 7.0 in > December 1993. > Any FAT32 support for it only exists in some 3party support for an > unofficially maintained version of the later Caldera OpenDOS 7.x... Caldera / Lineo / DeviceLogics / DR-DOS Inc. were the ones selling 7.03 (finalized circa late 1998, early 1999), which I bought online some years ago. Indeed, it lacked any "kernel" functionality regarding LFNs or FAT32, hence you were limited to 8 GB (four primary FAT16 partitions of 2 GB each). And BTW, IIRC that would be 16 kb clusters, which is incredibly wasteful, blech. MS-DOS / Win9x forced you to install in the very beginning of the hard drive. DR-DOS can install in subsequent partitions but has some weird limit regarding mounting and seeing previous partitions. FreeDOS is the most flexible in that it can see and use anything. (But I've not tested all the billions of other DOS variants!) So it's not like MS-DOS is perfect, but obviously it was the target most people wrote for in ye olde days. Different DOSes also have different speed and overall RAM requirements, among billions of other details (mostly inconsequential unless you're a trivia buff), though I admit I don't have any concrete details offhand. ;-) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 applications of the era. 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 properly. But, it is still a general purpose DOS that other applications can use -- it isn't a special version that only works with Windows 9x. The second is the OS (DOS) is set up to automatically load the Windows application. But, you can easily change this by simply adding a "BootGUI=0" line to the MSDOS.SYS text configuration file. You can then boot straight to a DOS command prompt, and run all kinds of DOS applications other than Windows 9x. If you then decide you want to run the DOS application called Windows 9x, you can simply type "WIN" at a DOS command prompt (just like you do with earlier versions of Windows). The last significant difference is that you can't just "exit" Windows 9x and go back to regular DOS again without rebooting. In that sense, it's a poorly designed application. Basically, "owning" Windows 9x also means you "own" DOS 7.x, and you don't need to ever run the Windows application if you don't want to. They are separate and distinct. Overall, I think I agree with Karen's assessment. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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*, freedos lets you access fat 32 file systems" with a footnote "* not counting the DOS bundled with Windows 95/98" or similar :-) Eric PS: Regarding LFN, there are free drivers that can be used with any DOS version to add LFN support, but I am not 100% sure if those are as MS-patent-waterproof as the LFN support in Linux. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 pirated software. It's easy as that. There were no commercially avaialable versions of MS DOS after 6.22. If you are running so called MS DOS 7.0+, You are legally running Windows 9x. That fact can be easily confirmed. Some of the binaries even contain strings that point to appropriate Windows version. Even if it works, looks and feels like MS DOS, it requires Windows license and it was sold as Windows. So, no: that's not MS DOS. That's Windows 95(A,B,C) or 98(SE). Bojan. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 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 DOS mode of Windows 95B intensified itself with > that version. As mentioned, MS-DOS 6.22 was the last official version > of MS-DOS. > > And DR-DOS never officially supported FAT32 either, the last version > of "DR-DOS" was 6.0, released in 1991, followed by Novell DOS 7.0 in > December 1993. > Any FAT32 support for it only exists in some 3party support for an > unofficially maintained version of the later Caldera OpenDOS 7.x... > > So in light of all that, there is no false information on the FreeDOS > home page... > Ralf > > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 DOS mode of Windows 95B intensified itself with that version. As mentioned, MS-DOS 6.22 was the last official version of MS-DOS. And DR-DOS never officially supported FAT32 either, the last version of "DR-DOS" was 6.0, released in 1991, followed by Novell DOS 7.0 in December 1993. Any FAT32 support for it only exists in some 3party support for an unofficially maintained version of the later Caldera OpenDOS 7.x... So in light of all that, there is no false information on the FreeDOS home page... Ralf -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 sure if the package is legal.. I think it is, if only because it still exists, even findable via google. Microsoft shut down rather a few others I understand. > > I am not aware of any legitimate (legal) stand-alone MS-DOS versions 7 and > up. I have been made aware that apparently one or some highly questionable > "distributions" exist, but this mailing list probably isn't apt for > evaluating these. (To clarify if needed: the previous is only my personal > opinion.) Again I respect that. > >> is it bundled under windows? not at all. > > This might be right. I think it's not important whether that's true, > though. > > Significantly, these MS-DOS versions existed, even if we only consider > them when they were bundled with MS Windows (whether versions 4, or later > as the contents that a floppy disk receives if formatted to be "MS-DOS > bootable" or such). 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. I have been using computers since 1988, and have only run Dos. this main machine is a Pentium III with 784 meg of memory and two very large to dos standards hard drives. No bugs crashes, or windows, smiles. thanks, Karen > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
> 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 to be compared to them. > Is it official ms dos stand alone? perhaps not. I am not aware of any legitimate (legal) stand-alone MS-DOS versions 7 and up. I have been made aware that apparently one or some highly questionable "distributions" exist, but this mailing list probably isn't apt for evaluating these. (To clarify if needed: the previous is only my personal opinion.) > is it bundled under windows? not at all. This might be right. I think it's not important whether that's true, though. Significantly, these MS-DOS versions existed, even if we only consider them when they were bundled with MS Windows (whether versions 4, or later as the contents that a floppy disk receives if formatted to be "MS-DOS bootable" or such). Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 LFN driver only inside Windows code. > However, opposed to the LFN situation, the MS Windows 4.10 implementation > of FAT32 was also accompanied by a DOS implementation of FAT32. > > So, FAT32 very much is "in DOS per se" there, though only in these new > Windows-bundled MS-DOS versions. which is exactly why the line should be changed. Other developers then took those dos editions, at least ms dos 7.1, added extra tools, and in around 2007 or so, made this package available. official? perhaps not, existing, absolutely. better sell what really makes you shine. Karen > > Regards, > Chris > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 sensational one, that are correct and not subject to miss interpreting? for my part, the edition of ms dos 7 i run was packaged by developers much like yourselves. Is it official ms dos stand alone? perhaps not. is it bundled under windows? not at all. Karen On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, C. Masloch wrote: >> 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 things freedos can do, networking for >> example?, the fat 32 one as distinguishing it from ms dos is false >> information and should be removed. > > I would suggest that we precisely quote the passage in question. I think > you're referring to this one (please correct me otherwise): > > page> FreeDOS is basically like the old MS-DOS, but better! > page> For example, unlike MS-DOS, FreeDOS lets you access > page> FAT32 file systems and use large disk support (LBA). > [This is found under the heading "Welcome to FreeDOS", in the answer "What > is FreeDOS?".] > > Now, you're correct that later MS-DOS versions (those typically only > bundled with MS Windows systems) did also support the FAT32 FS (as well as > LBA access). > > On the other hand, at least the first sentence quoted by me refers to "old > MS-DOS" specifically, which might be understood to refer to the earlier > (stand-alone) MS-DOS versions. > >> Honestly even stating that freedos is sill under development unlike ms >> dos is distinction enough, and correct. > > Another distinguishing feature important to many users (and developers > alike) is the freedoms that apply to core FreeDOS software, including of > course gratis unlimited redistribution which is completely legal for these. > > Regards, > Chris > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 1994, the line should say unlike ms dos 6.22, which is what you apparently? mean by the older ms dos. better still as I suggested use something totally unique to freedos like its being under development, or its networking abilities which did not exist in ms dos at all. given the people who may want to decide between you and say enhanced Dr dos, the more positive correctness you demonstrate the better. Just my take, Karen On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Rugxulo wrote: > 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 32 partitions on my ms dos system in fact, and there is no >> windows on my computer whatsoever. >> While there are likely many things freedos can do, networking for >> example?, the fat 32 one as distinguishing it from ms dos is false >> information and should be removed. >> Honestly even stating that freedos is sill under development unlike ms >> dos is distinction enough, and correct. > > MS-DOS 6.22 didn't support FAT32 out of the box (or really at all). > And that was the last truly stand-alone version of MS-DOS. > > Yes, Win95 OSR (or whatever) introduced FAT32 later on, but it wasn't > in DOS per se, hence most people with older copies couldn't use the > better file system. FAT16 can be really wasteful on big hard drives, > from cluster slack alone, not to mention the inherent limit on overall > partition size. So FAT32 is a big deal and wasn't always available in > FreeDOS either, at least not in 1994. ;-) > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
> 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 support, with the important core LFN driver only inside Windows code. However, opposed to the LFN situation, the MS Windows 4.10 implementation of FAT32 was also accompanied by a DOS implementation of FAT32. So, FAT32 very much is "in DOS per se" there, though only in these new Windows-bundled MS-DOS versions. Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
> 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 things freedos can do, networking for > example?, the fat 32 one as distinguishing it from ms dos is false > information and should be removed. I would suggest that we precisely quote the passage in question. I think you're referring to this one (please correct me otherwise): page> FreeDOS is basically like the old MS-DOS, but better! page> For example, unlike MS-DOS, FreeDOS lets you access page> FAT32 file systems and use large disk support (LBA). [This is found under the heading "Welcome to FreeDOS", in the answer "What is FreeDOS?".] Now, you're correct that later MS-DOS versions (those typically only bundled with MS Windows systems) did also support the FAT32 FS (as well as LBA access). On the other hand, at least the first sentence quoted by me refers to "old MS-DOS" specifically, which might be understood to refer to the earlier (stand-alone) MS-DOS versions. > Honestly even stating that freedos is sill under development unlike ms > dos is distinction enough, and correct. Another distinguishing feature important to many users (and developers alike) is the freedoms that apply to core FreeDOS software, including of course gratis unlimited redistribution which is completely legal for these. Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?
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 32 partitions on my ms dos system in fact, and there is no > windows on my computer whatsoever. > While there are likely many things freedos can do, networking for > example?, the fat 32 one as distinguishing it from ms dos is false > information and should be removed. > Honestly even stating that freedos is sill under development unlike ms > dos is distinction enough, and correct. MS-DOS 6.22 didn't support FAT32 out of the box (or really at all). And that was the last truly stand-alone version of MS-DOS. Yes, Win95 OSR (or whatever) introduced FAT32 later on, but it wasn't in DOS per se, hence most people with older copies couldn't use the better file system. FAT16 can be really wasteful on big hard drives, from cluster slack alone, not to mention the inherent limit on overall partition size. So FAT32 is a big deal and wasn't always available in FreeDOS either, at least not in 1994. ;-) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
