Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?

2012-09-26 Thread Jim Hall
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 e.a...@jpberlin.de 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?

2012-09-19 Thread Bertho Grandpied
Hi !
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:29:38 -0500, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com 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?

2012-09-18 Thread Eric Auer

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?

2012-09-18 Thread Bret Johnson
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?

2012-09-18 Thread Rugxulo
Hi,

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net 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?

2012-09-18 Thread C. Masloch
 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?

2012-09-18 Thread Rugxulo
Hi,

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM, C. Masloch c...@bttr-software.de 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?

2012-09-18 Thread Rugxulo
Hi,

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Bret Johnson bretj...@juno.com 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?

2012-09-18 Thread Ralf A. Quint
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?

2012-09-18 Thread Rugxulo
Hi,

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net 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?

2012-09-18 Thread C. Masloch
 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?

2012-09-18 Thread Ralf A. Quint
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?

2012-09-18 Thread C. Masloch
 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?

2012-09-18 Thread Rugxulo
Hi again,:-)

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net 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?

2012-09-18 Thread Ricardus Vincente
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?

2012-09-18 Thread Rugxulo
Hi,

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:26 PM, C. Masloch c...@bttr-software.de 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?

2012-09-18 Thread Ralf A. Quint
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?

2012-09-18 Thread C. Masloch
 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?

2012-09-17 Thread Rugxulo
Hi,

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Karen Lewellen
klewel...@shellworld.net 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


Re: [Freedos-user] false info on the freedos home page?

2012-09-17 Thread C. Masloch
 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?

2012-09-17 Thread C. Masloch
 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?

2012-09-17 Thread Karen Lewellen
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
 klewel...@shellworld.net 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?

2012-09-17 Thread Karen Lewellen
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?

2012-09-17 Thread Karen Lewellen
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?

2012-09-17 Thread C. Masloch

 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?

2012-09-17 Thread Karen Lewellen
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?

2012-09-17 Thread Ralf A. Quint
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?

2012-09-17 Thread Karen Lewellen
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?

2012-09-17 Thread Ralf A. Quint
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?

2012-09-17 Thread Bojan Popovic
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