Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Actively Used Scenarios

[Karen Lewellen via Freedos-user]

Well..it goes without saying that I use DOS for all my professional and 
personal activities.

Just had a computer put together so I can keep doing this in fact.
It is much harder to get a freedos specific machine built though.  Would 
love a laptop for example.

Karen



On Mon, 3 Jun 2024, Jim Hall via Freedos-user wrote:


Roger wrote:

Would be really interesting to hear, how people continue actively using
DOS today, including their hardware/software environment. Of course, not
including testing environments, as these can get really exquisite! And,
I already realize one of the environments DOS is still used, for
engineering and bare-metal programming projects.

[..]

More so curious, does anybody use DOS/FreeDOS for daily office work?
We've all heard of one writer doing so.


Mercury Thirteen wrote:

Actually, a book exists which is all about that question! :)

Check out Why We Love FreeDOS available at https://freedos.org/books/


Roger wrote:

Just what I was looking for.  Thanks!




I'll add that I met with someone last year who uses FreeDOS to drive a
CNC router to make actual products. (CNC = "Computer Numerical
Control" .. that is the fancy term for "a machine controlled by a
computer.) I recall that the CNC was running from a Dell PC, and they
had a serial selector that let the PC control two (or three?)
different CNC routers .. but one at a time.

I also found a video on YouTube from a few years ago, about some
trainspotters in Russia (I think) who found a PC in some remote booth
next to a rail line that ran the communications systems. I don't think
it was "train signal control" but "announcements sent to the trains,
like for an automated voice to read over the speaker." (Probably
boring stuff like "Staff will check for valid tickets" or "Trains will
run slow on Wednesday due to the holiday" or "No smoking aboard
trains" or whatever.) The PC was off, so they turned it on to see what
it did .. and if you paused the video at the right time, you could see
it was booting FreeDOS.

My favorite example of someone running FreeDOS was years ago, probably
around 2005. They built pinball machines, and FreeDOS ran the scoring
system, lit the lights, and played sound effects from a sound bank. I
have no idea how that was hooked up, but I've always imagined that
each element (bumpers, etc) provided input on a keyboard bus, and then
a DOS application read the keyboard to know what was happening. But
that was a long time ago, and I'm sure they aren't doing that anymore.

My favorite example before that was a nebulous one. Someone from NASA
emailed me in the late 1990s to say they were using FreeDOS on some of
their computers. They never provided details, so I don't know what it
was doing - but how cool that NASA was using FreeDOS!?

For myself, I usually run FreeDOS in a virtual machine. I like QEMU
because it's easy - but mostly because it's already installed by
default on my Linux desktop system, so I don't have to install some
other package like VirtualBox or PCem.

More recently, I bought a Pocket386 micro laptop, and now that's
running FreeDOS (see other email thread). That's $200 for the laptop,
$20 for the CF card reader, and another $20 for the PS/2 keyboard. Not
bad!

And while I don't use FreeDOS for daily work, I do use it almost
daily. One thing I do is play DOS games to take a break. I purchased
legit copies of classic DOS games from GOG.com (for like $5 each) and
I installed those on FreeDOS. I loved replaying Jill of the Jungle.
I'm replaying Commander Keen now.

I also use FreeDOS as a demonstration when I teach a university class.
That class is basically two parts: "How computers work (plus a history
of technology)" and "How to use Word & Excel." These are freshmen
students, so almost no one has used a spreadsheet before. When I start
the Excel unit, I bring in FreeDOS and show them some classic
spreadsheets: I show them VisiCalc, Lotus 1-2-3, As Easy As, and then
Quattro Pro. And then the students understand that spreadsheets just
haven't changed that much over time. The interface has changed
(graphical) and modern spreadsheets support more functions, but the
core features of "letters for columns, numbers for rows, cells are A1,
.. and so on" haven't changed since 1979 (VisiCalc on the Apple II was
the first desktop spreadsheet that we would recognize as a
"spreadsheet").

I love As Easy As. That saw me through my physics undergrad program.
And it does so much that modern spreadsheets can do - just differently
(like conditional formatting). I sometimes think that if I didn't need
to share spreadsheets with others, As Easy As could meet more than 95%
of my spreadsheet needs in 2024. That's one reason I keep showing off
As Easy As in the videos on our YouTube channel.

*We have links to VisiCalc and As Easy As on the website:
https://www.freedos.org/about/apps/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Actively Used Scenarios

[tom ehlert via Freedos-user]

> 1. The computer powers on and does a Power On Self Test ("POST") to
> verify that the hardware is working, then loads the kernel (FreeDOS)

Nope. The computer (the BIOS) reads the first sector from the firat hard disk,
and jumps to it. Usually, but not necessarily, this happens to have some code,
and a "partition table", which is a list of disk partitions where filesystems 
start. 

this code searches the partiton table for a partition marked "active", reads the
first sector of it, and jumps to it. 

Usually, but not necessarily, this code understand the file system of *this* 
partition.
FAT16/32 for FreeDOS, maybe EXT4 for linux, NTFS for Windows.

it then searches for the OS File(s) (which in case of freedos are named 
KERNEL.SYS, but could 
be some bootmanager (like GRUB) that helps load several different partitions 
from different locations
on the disk). 

> 2. The FreeDOS kernel reads \FDCONFIG.SYS (or \CONFIG.SYS) to read its
> configuration - this might include SHELL to tell the kernel which user
> shell to use

...

Tom



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Actively Used Scenarios

[Wolf Bergenheim via Freedos-user]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 7:46 PM Jim Hall via Freedos-user <
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Roger wrote:
> > I finished reading the "Why We Love FreeDOS" book a few nights
> > ago.  A really good read, and led myself to a similar conclusion,
> > DOS/FreeDOS is a really good platform for learning and implementing
> > initial experimental engineering for experimental or working hardware
> > due to simplicity and bare metal access.


I was inspired by this thread to also read the "Why We Love FreeDOS" book,
and finished it this morning. What a fun read! Thanks for putting it
together, Jim!

For me, coming back to Freedos after ~22 years has been a lot of fun. I'm
quite technical, and a professional software engineer now (I was a student
when I last participated), so diving deep into the intricacies of old
Undocumented DOS and the FreeDOS kernel code has been both refreshingly
straight forward (I keep having to remind myself that DOS is not
multithreaded) and complex (how does COMMAND.COM and friends split itself
into a resident and transient parts?). It's been a month of re-discovery
and learning. :D

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 7:46 PM Jim Hall via Freedos-user <
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

>
> DOS was created for a different purpose. When IBM created the IBM PC
> 5150 in 1981, they needed an operating system to run on it, so the
> computer could run programs. I'll save the backstory, but Microsoft
> licensed a "DOS" from Seattle Computing, and that became the PC's DOS.
> But DOS was not intended to be a set of tools like Unix. Instead, the
> DOS command line was something you might use to do a few things like
> format a floppy or edit a file, or do basic file management, but
> mostly you just ran an application (such as the BASIC interpreter).
> DOS has always been very application-based.
>

This explanation has so much truth to it, and clicked with me. I grew up on
DOS, but graduated on Linux, and so have tended to lean towards the unix
tool philosophy, but this really explains a lot of DOS applications. A lot
of them were really complete Applications and you would often have that one
application which you would use to solve a problem, rather than I'll
combine these tools to solve my problem. It might even make me change the
way I build some of my commands for DOG :)

-Wolf

-- 

  |\_
  | .\---.
 /   ,__/
/   /Wolf _




> --
>
> I'm very off-topic with this, but here's an example: 'cat' will print
> the contents of a file (or files) to the terminal. 'tr' will translate
> one character set to another character set, or delete characters from
> a set. 'uniq' will remove duplicate lines from a file. 'sort' will
> sort the lines in a file. And 'comm' will compare two files and print
> the lines that are unique to file1, file2, or both.
>
> Individually, these are interesting commands that you can use to do a
> lot of different things. And by combining them in a specific way, you
> can do something like find misspelled words in a text file:
>
> (The first command just makes sure you have a correctly sorted list)
>
> > $ sort /usr/share/dict/words > words
>
> > $ cat hello.txt
> Hi there! This is a demnstration of how to find misspelled words.
>
> > $ cat hello.txt | tr A-Z a-z | tr -d '.,:;()?!' | tr ' ' '\n' | sort |
> uniq | comm -2 -3 - words
> demnstration
>
>
> In other words: convert uppercase to lowercase, remove punctuation,
> turn spaces into new-lines (each word will be on a separate line),
> sort the list, remove duplicates, compare to the dictionary (the
> 'words' file') and only show the lines (words) that do NOT appear in
> the dictionary.
>
> So that just shows how to combine tools to do different things, rather
> than relying on a single application to do it all for you. There's
> tradeoffs either way for "tools" v "applications," I'm just showing an
> example of "tools."
>
>
> *The sort command was an original program from Unix 1st Edition
> (November 1971), uniq arrived in Unix 3rd Edition (February 1973), and
> tr and comm were both introduced in Unix 4th Edition (November 1973).
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Actively Used Scenarios

[Jim Hall via Freedos-user]

Roger wrote:
> I finished reading the "Why We Love FreeDOS" book a few nights
> ago.  A really good read, and led myself to a similar conclusion,
> DOS/FreeDOS is a really good platform for learning and implementing
> initial experimental engineering for experimental or working hardware
> due to simplicity and bare metal access.

I'm glad you liked the book!

I also think FreeDOS is a great platform to learn about computing. One
reason is it is so simple; DOS has very few "moving parts" to confuse
things. I recently wrote an article for Allthingsopen.org about "how
FreeDOS boots" to help people understand how a computer boots up. If
you can understand this for a simple operating system like DOS, you
can use that to figure out the more complex operating systems like
Linux, Windows, and Mac. For example, DOS computers essentially do
this:

1. The computer powers on and does a Power On Self Test ("POST") to
verify that the hardware is working, then loads the kernel (FreeDOS)

2. The FreeDOS kernel reads \FDCONFIG.SYS (or \CONFIG.SYS) to read its
configuration - this might include SHELL to tell the kernel which user
shell to use

3. The kernel starts the user shell (or \COMMAND.COM if the shell was
not specified)

4. COMMAND.COM executes commands in \AUTOEXEC.BAT (or another file
like FDAUTO.BAT, if given) to set the initial environment

5. The user gets the ">" prompt and can type commands


Once you understand those steps, you can start to understand how more
complex operating systems boot up.


> No wonder I had such a difficult time with DOS, DOS was a morphed
> incarnation of CP/M.  Main difference, instead of a ready prompt,
> put the user at the C:\ prompt.
>
> I more so enjoy the Unix/Linux platform, all the software tends to
> co-exist more peacefully than the intricate parts of DOS.  On the
> flip, DOS is assembly, whereas Unix/Linux is primarily C programming
> language.  Unix/Linux, when using the command line, typing just flows
> far better than typing DOS commands.

Well, Unix/Linux and DOS have very different origins to solve
different problems - and because of that, they grew up quite
differently.

The main thing about Unix is that it was created with the idea that
each program should be specific and do one thing really well, and you
can combine programs to do something really cool. That design idea
meant that you didn't have "applications" on Unix, you had a set of
tools.

DOS was created for a different purpose. When IBM created the IBM PC
5150 in 1981, they needed an operating system to run on it, so the
computer could run programs. I'll save the backstory, but Microsoft
licensed a "DOS" from Seattle Computing, and that became the PC's DOS.
But DOS was not intended to be a set of tools like Unix. Instead, the
DOS command line was something you might use to do a few things like
format a floppy or edit a file, or do basic file management, but
mostly you just ran an application (such as the BASIC interpreter).
DOS has always been very application-based.

--

I'm very off-topic with this, but here's an example: 'cat' will print
the contents of a file (or files) to the terminal. 'tr' will translate
one character set to another character set, or delete characters from
a set. 'uniq' will remove duplicate lines from a file. 'sort' will
sort the lines in a file. And 'comm' will compare two files and print
the lines that are unique to file1, file2, or both.

Individually, these are interesting commands that you can use to do a
lot of different things. And by combining them in a specific way, you
can do something like find misspelled words in a text file:

(The first command just makes sure you have a correctly sorted list)

> $ sort /usr/share/dict/words > words

> $ cat hello.txt
Hi there! This is a demnstration of how to find misspelled words.

> $ cat hello.txt | tr A-Z a-z | tr -d '.,:;()?!' | tr ' ' '\n' | sort | uniq | 
> comm -2 -3 - words
demnstration


In other words: convert uppercase to lowercase, remove punctuation,
turn spaces into new-lines (each word will be on a separate line),
sort the list, remove duplicates, compare to the dictionary (the
'words' file') and only show the lines (words) that do NOT appear in
the dictionary.

So that just shows how to combine tools to do different things, rather
than relying on a single application to do it all for you. There's
tradeoffs either way for "tools" v "applications," I'm just showing an
example of "tools."


*The sort command was an original program from Unix 1st Edition
(November 1971), uniq arrived in Unix 3rd Edition (February 1973), and
tr and comm were both introduced in Unix 4th Edition (November 1973).


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Actively Used Scenarios

[Roger via Freedos-user]

I finished reading the "Why We Love FreeDOS" book a few nights ago.  A
really good read, and led myself to a similar conclusion, DOS/FreeDOS is a
really good platform for learning and implementing initial experimental
engineering for experimental or working hardware due to simplicity and bare
metal access.

With the low-boot times of older hardware, can imagine likely has a
constant foothold within certain areas.  Albeit, more so within the
private/civilian sector nowadays.

No wonder I had such a difficult time with DOS, DOS was a morphed
incarnation of CP/M.  Main difference, instead of a ready prompt, put the
user at the C:\ prompt.

I more so enjoy the Unix/Linux platform, all the software tends to co-exist
more peacefully than the intricate parts of DOS.  On the flip, DOS is
assembly, whereas Unix/Linux is primarily C programming language.
Unix/Linux, when using the command line, typing just flows far better than
typing DOS commands.

However, have an open mind and would likely spend some time in DOS/FreeDOS,
if I can find some purposeful use besides just using Word Perfect.  I
rarely ever waste time playing games.  You'll readily realize, if you find
me wasting time playing a DOS game, it'll likely be because I'm sitting in
a retirement home after having my computer/Internet confiscated, trying to
patiently await for my funeral.  And there's an idea, pretty sure prisons
likely allow prisoners to use DOS without Internet, for playing games...

Roger

On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 8:23 PM Norby Droid via Freedos-user <
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> I love FreeDos and it s the only operating system on my opd msi computer
> running a quad core 2.66ghz cpu amd 4gb of ram.  My main use is just
> programming in PowerBasic or FreeBasic, and I may sometime try C thanks to
> the great videos Mr Hall has on youtube.  I do rarely play games, or play
> mp3 or midi files for some fun.  Personally I prefer to use an old computer
> running FreeDos than a new computer running Linux.  I am no pro programmer,
> but I do love to program and see what I can create.
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 20:11 Eric Auer via Freedos-user <
> freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim!
>>
>> > My favorite example of someone running FreeDOS was years ago, probably
>> > around 2005. They built pinball machines, and FreeDOS ran the scoring
>> > system, lit the lights, and played sound effects from a sound bank...
>>
>> Maybe they used some type of lab control or GPIO type ISA or PCI card?
>>
>> > My favorite example before that was a nebulous one. Someone from NASA
>> > emailed me in the late 1990s to say they were using FreeDOS on some of
>> > their computers. They never provided details, so I don't know what it
>> > was doing - but how cool that NASA was using FreeDOS!?
>>
>> I remember somebody asking whether FreeDOS had contributions from people
>> from evil countries, because they wanted to use it to run some type of
>> in-flight entertainment system with some media player app for DOS :-)
>>
>> More recently, during a small demoscene event, I noticed that one of
>> the presented demos was a 256 byte demo running on FreeDOS. The boot
>> message was only visible for a moment, so I do not know what type of
>> virtual hardware that FreeDOS instance was running on.
>>
>> Cheers, Eric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Freedos-user mailing list
>> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Actively Used Scenarios

[Norby Droid via Freedos-user]

I love FreeDos and it s the only operating system on my opd msi computer
running a quad core 2.66ghz cpu amd 4gb of ram.  My main use is just
programming in PowerBasic or FreeBasic, and I may sometime try C thanks to
the great videos Mr Hall has on youtube.  I do rarely play games, or play
mp3 or midi files for some fun.  Personally I prefer to use an old computer
running FreeDos than a new computer running Linux.  I am no pro programmer,
but I do love to program and see what I can create.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 20:11 Eric Auer via Freedos-user <
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Hi Jim!
>
> > My favorite example of someone running FreeDOS was years ago, probably
> > around 2005. They built pinball machines, and FreeDOS ran the scoring
> > system, lit the lights, and played sound effects from a sound bank...
>
> Maybe they used some type of lab control or GPIO type ISA or PCI card?
>
> > My favorite example before that was a nebulous one. Someone from NASA
> > emailed me in the late 1990s to say they were using FreeDOS on some of
> > their computers. They never provided details, so I don't know what it
> > was doing - but how cool that NASA was using FreeDOS!?
>
> I remember somebody asking whether FreeDOS had contributions from people
> from evil countries, because they wanted to use it to run some type of
> in-flight entertainment system with some media player app for DOS :-)
>
> More recently, during a small demoscene event, I noticed that one of
> the presented demos was a 256 byte demo running on FreeDOS. The boot
> message was only visible for a moment, so I do not know what type of
> virtual hardware that FreeDOS instance was running on.
>
> Cheers, Eric
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Actively Used Scenarios

[Eric Auer via Freedos-user]

Hi Jim!


My favorite example of someone running FreeDOS was years ago, probably
around 2005. They built pinball machines, and FreeDOS ran the scoring
system, lit the lights, and played sound effects from a sound bank...


Maybe they used some type of lab control or GPIO type ISA or PCI card?


My favorite example before that was a nebulous one. Someone from NASA
emailed me in the late 1990s to say they were using FreeDOS on some of
their computers. They never provided details, so I don't know what it
was doing - but how cool that NASA was using FreeDOS!?


I remember somebody asking whether FreeDOS had contributions from people
from evil countries, because they wanted to use it to run some type of
in-flight entertainment system with some media player app for DOS :-)

More recently, during a small demoscene event, I noticed that one of
the presented demos was a 256 byte demo running on FreeDOS. The boot
message was only visible for a moment, so I do not know what type of
virtual hardware that FreeDOS instance was running on.

Cheers, Eric




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Actively Used Scenarios

[Jim Hall via Freedos-user]

Roger wrote:
> >> Would be really interesting to hear, how people continue actively using
> >> DOS today, including their hardware/software environment. Of course, not
> >> including testing environments, as these can get really exquisite! And,
> >> I already realize one of the environments DOS is still used, for
> >> engineering and bare-metal programming projects.
[..]
> >> More so curious, does anybody use DOS/FreeDOS for daily office work?
> >> We've all heard of one writer doing so.

Mercury Thirteen wrote:
> >Actually, a book exists which is all about that question! :)
> >
> >Check out Why We Love FreeDOS available at https://freedos.org/books/

Roger wrote:
> Just what I was looking for.  Thanks!
>


I'll add that I met with someone last year who uses FreeDOS to drive a
CNC router to make actual products. (CNC = "Computer Numerical
Control" .. that is the fancy term for "a machine controlled by a
computer.) I recall that the CNC was running from a Dell PC, and they
had a serial selector that let the PC control two (or three?)
different CNC routers .. but one at a time.

I also found a video on YouTube from a few years ago, about some
trainspotters in Russia (I think) who found a PC in some remote booth
next to a rail line that ran the communications systems. I don't think
it was "train signal control" but "announcements sent to the trains,
like for an automated voice to read over the speaker." (Probably
boring stuff like "Staff will check for valid tickets" or "Trains will
run slow on Wednesday due to the holiday" or "No smoking aboard
trains" or whatever.) The PC was off, so they turned it on to see what
it did .. and if you paused the video at the right time, you could see
it was booting FreeDOS.

My favorite example of someone running FreeDOS was years ago, probably
around 2005. They built pinball machines, and FreeDOS ran the scoring
system, lit the lights, and played sound effects from a sound bank. I
have no idea how that was hooked up, but I've always imagined that
each element (bumpers, etc) provided input on a keyboard bus, and then
a DOS application read the keyboard to know what was happening. But
that was a long time ago, and I'm sure they aren't doing that anymore.

My favorite example before that was a nebulous one. Someone from NASA
emailed me in the late 1990s to say they were using FreeDOS on some of
their computers. They never provided details, so I don't know what it
was doing - but how cool that NASA was using FreeDOS!?

For myself, I usually run FreeDOS in a virtual machine. I like QEMU
because it's easy - but mostly because it's already installed by
default on my Linux desktop system, so I don't have to install some
other package like VirtualBox or PCem.

More recently, I bought a Pocket386 micro laptop, and now that's
running FreeDOS (see other email thread). That's $200 for the laptop,
$20 for the CF card reader, and another $20 for the PS/2 keyboard. Not
bad!

And while I don't use FreeDOS for daily work, I do use it almost
daily. One thing I do is play DOS games to take a break. I purchased
legit copies of classic DOS games from GOG.com (for like $5 each) and
I installed those on FreeDOS. I loved replaying Jill of the Jungle.
I'm replaying Commander Keen now.

I also use FreeDOS as a demonstration when I teach a university class.
That class is basically two parts: "How computers work (plus a history
of technology)" and "How to use Word & Excel." These are freshmen
students, so almost no one has used a spreadsheet before. When I start
the Excel unit, I bring in FreeDOS and show them some classic
spreadsheets: I show them VisiCalc, Lotus 1-2-3, As Easy As, and then
Quattro Pro. And then the students understand that spreadsheets just
haven't changed that much over time. The interface has changed
(graphical) and modern spreadsheets support more functions, but the
core features of "letters for columns, numbers for rows, cells are A1,
.. and so on" haven't changed since 1979 (VisiCalc on the Apple II was
the first desktop spreadsheet that we would recognize as a
"spreadsheet").

I love As Easy As. That saw me through my physics undergrad program.
And it does so much that modern spreadsheets can do - just differently
(like conditional formatting). I sometimes think that if I didn't need
to share spreadsheets with others, As Easy As could meet more than 95%
of my spreadsheet needs in 2024. That's one reason I keep showing off
As Easy As in the videos on our YouTube channel.

*We have links to VisiCalc and As Easy As on the website:
https://www.freedos.org/about/apps/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Actively Used Scenarios

[Roger via Freedos-user]

Just what I was looking for.  Thanks!

Roger

> On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 07:47:13AM +, Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-user 
> wrote:
>Actually, a book exists which is all about that question! :)
>
>Check out Why We Love FreeDOS available at https://freedos.org/books/
>
>Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.
>
>On Saturday, June 1st, 2024 at 2:51 AM, Roger via Freedos-user 
>freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
>
>> Would be really interesting to hear, how people continue actively using
>> DOS today, including their hardware/software environment. Of course, not
>> including testing environments, as these can get really exquisite! And,
>> I already realize one of the environments DOS is still used, for
>> engineering and bare-metal programming projects.
>>
>> More specifically, what Jim Hall uses for day to day tasks, whether he
>> entirely resorts to using DOS/FreeDOS for daily (office) tasks, or uses MS
>> Windows, Mac or Linux for office related tasks.
>>
>> Guessing, this would make a good video for the FreeDOS YouTube site.
>> Lots of video clips, but nothing really showing his daily
>> hardware/software environment, except for one recent photo of his
>> (powered-off) desktop.
>>
>> More so curious, does anybody use DOS/FreeDOS for daily office work?
>> We've all heard of one writer doing so.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>> ___
>> Freedos-user mailing list
>> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


>___
>Freedos-user mailing list
>Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Actively Used Scenarios

[Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-user]

Actually, a book exists which is all about that question! :)

Check out Why We Love FreeDOS available at https://freedos.org/books/

Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.

On Saturday, June 1st, 2024 at 2:51 AM, Roger via Freedos-user 
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:

> Would be really interesting to hear, how people continue actively using
> DOS today, including their hardware/software environment. Of course, not
> including testing environments, as these can get really exquisite! And,
> I already realize one of the environments DOS is still used, for
> engineering and bare-metal programming projects.
>
> More specifically, what Jim Hall uses for day to day tasks, whether he
> entirely resorts to using DOS/FreeDOS for daily (office) tasks, or uses MS
> Windows, Mac or Linux for office related tasks.
>
> Guessing, this would make a good video for the FreeDOS YouTube site.
> Lots of video clips, but nothing really showing his daily
> hardware/software environment, except for one recent photo of his
> (powered-off) desktop.
>
> More so curious, does anybody use DOS/FreeDOS for daily office work?
> We've all heard of one writer doing so.
>
> Roger
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dos navigator

[Jim Hall via Freedos-user]

On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 8:31 PM Travis Siegel via Freedos-user
 wrote:
>
> I found my copy of PTS DOS Source, and was digging through them to see
> some of the differences between that and opendos, for which I also have
> the sources, and I ran across the dos navigator menuing system (at least
> I'm pretty sure it's a menu system, don't currently have a dos machine
> setup anywhere, so can't run it). But, interestingly enough, it's
> opensource as well, and I was curious if free dos would be willing to
> include it, there's a lot of traffic on the list at times looking for a
> decent menuing system, dos navigator could be the answer.  PTS DOS uses
> it, so why not?
>
> It can be found at: https://www.ritlabs.com/en/products/dn/
>
> just in case anyone is interested in taking a look.
>


FreeDOS already includes DOS Navigator 2. It gets installed from the
Applications group:

https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.3/official/report.html

https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/repositories/1.3/pkg-html/dn2.html


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[Ralf Quint via Freedos-user]

On 5/18/2024 3:56 PM, tsiegel--- via Freedos-user wrote:


Does spinright still have a dos version of their software posted 
anywhere? I seem to recall, that was a really good utility.  I 
unfortunately never had the money to purchase it, and I gave up on 
Norton Utilities after paying 50 bucks more for the advanced version 
of 4.5, then got the same upgrade price as those who didn't, so I 
considered that bad marketing, poor customer retention, and just 
bailed on the whole Norton brand, and never dropped another dollar on 
anything Norton related, and that continues to this day.


I know spinright had some upgrades from their dos package into the 
early windows era, but I lost track after that, so no clue where it is 
now, or even if it's still around.  Nonetheless, it was a good utility 
for hard disk maintenance when it was out.


SpinWite was a useful tool for floppy disks, but it rather sucked when 
using it with hard drive...



Ralf




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[Wayne Dernoncourt via Freedos-user]

Version 6.1(?) now boots USFI(?). previous versions booted FreeDOS to run SpinEite.Please see www.grc.comThis clown speaks for himselfOn May 19, 2024, at 8:30 AM, tsiegel--- via Freedos-user  wrote:
  

  
  
Yep, that's the one.


On 5/19/2024 2:54 AM, Omar Yabar via
  Freedos-user wrote:

Do
  you mean Spinrite? in this link there are 5 versions 
  https://winworldpc.com/product/spinrite/1x

Yahoo
Mail: busca, organiza, toma el control de tu buzón


  
El sáb., 18 de may. de 2024 a la(s) 9:15 p. m.,
  tsiegel--- via Freedos-user
 escribió:
  
   ___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
  

  
  
  
  
  
  ___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


  

___Freedos-user mailing listFreedos-user@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[tsiegel--- via Freedos-user]

Yep, that's the one.


On 5/19/2024 2:54 AM, Omar Yabar via Freedos-user wrote:

Do you mean Spinrite? in this link there are 5 versions
https://winworldpc.com/product/spinrite/1x

Yahoo Mail: busca, organiza, toma el control de tu buzón 



El sáb., 18 de may. de 2024 a la(s) 9:15 p. m., tsiegel--- via
Freedos-user
 escribió:
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[Omar Yabar via Freedos-user]

Do you mean Spinrite? in this link there are 5 versions 
https://winworldpc.com/product/spinrite/1x

Yahoo Mail: busca, organiza, toma el control de tu buzón 
 
  El sáb., 18 de may. de 2024 a la(s) 9:15 p. m., tsiegel--- via 
Freedos-user escribió:   
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
  
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[Karen Lewellen via Freedos-user]

hmm, let me see if I can find the edition suggested by an engineer friend 
of mine for the person who built this last machine.

Karen



On Sat, 18 May 2024, tsiegel--- via Freedos-user wrote:

Does spinright still have a dos version of their software posted anywhere? I 
seem to recall, that was a really good utility.?? I unfortunately never had 
the money to purchase it, and I gave up on Norton Utilities after paying 50 
bucks more for the advanced version of 4.5, then got the same upgrade price 
as those who didn't, so I considered that bad marketing, poor customer 
retention, and just bailed on the whole Norton brand, and never dropped 
another dollar on anything Norton related, and that continues to this day.


I know spinright had some upgrades from their dos package into the early 
windows era, but I lost track after that, so no clue where it is now, or even 
if it's still around.?? Nonetheless, it was a good utility for hard disk 
maintenance when it was out.


On 5/15/2024 8:45 PM, Rober To via Freedos-user wrote:

 Hi everybody:

 Other suggestions:

 https://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk


 http://www.partition-saving.com/



 En mi??rcoles, 15 de mayo de 2024, 03:46:41 CEST, Karen Lewellen via
 Freedos-user  escribi??:


 Eric,
 While I will work through this list of course, you would need to reach the
 part of that Wikipedia article that talks of Norton 8, I honestly did not
 even start using a computer until 1989, and did not own a copy of Norton
 Utilities until?? after 200 at the earliest.
 I used it as an example, because the tools were grouped under the same
 organizational umbrella, designed to support it each other in solid
 diagnostic support if that makes sense.
 Kind of like spinwrite tools, instead of separate programs that may or may
 not play well together.
 will see how well these suggestions work with speech though.
 Thanks,
 Karen



 On Wed, 15 May 2024, Eric Auer via Freedos-user wrote:

> 
>  Hi Karen,
> 
>  the utilities recommended by Rober To sound useful:
> 
>  HDAT2 harddisk repair and diagnostics ATA, ATAPI, SATA, USB, SCSI
> 
>  ASTRA Advanced Sysinfo Tool and Reporting Assistant
> 
>  HWiNFO system information, monitoring and diagnostics
> 
> > ?? Do you recall the items in norton utilities?
> 
>  There is a wikipedia article about them:
> 
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Utilities
> 
>  The first version in 1982 included:
> 
>  unerase - Freedos comes with a simple undelete tool

>  filefix - "repairs damaged files" (?)
>  disklook - apparently a floppy disk cluster map display?
> 
>  secmod - floppy disk sector changer (disk editor, I guess?)

>  filehide - Freedos attrib should be sufficient for that
>  bathide - related to filehide
> 
>  timemark - "displays date, time, elapsed time"

>  scratr - sets colors, you can use ANSI and PROMPT for that
>  reverse - sets colors to black on white
> 
>  clear - you can use cls for that

>  filesort - sorts directories on disk
>  diskopt - tunes floppy access speed
> 
>  beep - just beeps the speaker

>  print - prints files
> 
>  Which free and open tools for directory sorting and

>  disk editors do we have in the distro at this time?
> 
>  I guess diskopt works by creating an interlaced floppy

>  sector format, which tools do we have for this style?
> 
>  According to wikipedia, Norton Utilities 2.0 added filefind

>  and renames print to lprint because MS DOS 2.0 already came
>  with a tool called print itself.
> 
>  In version 3.0, you get additional tools for file size and

>  directory listings, system information, text search, wiping
>  of disks and files etc.
> 
>  Which tools do we recommend for directory listings, file size

>  info and wiping? For size info, I would use the GNU "du" tool,
>  which is available as DJGPP compiled DOS binary.
> 
>  What could we recommend for finding files and text? I guess

>  the GNU tools "find" and "grep" would be useful choices here?
>  Similar for "wipe".
> 
>  Version 3.1 adds unerase and unremove directory tools.
> 
>  New in version 4: Defrag tool (speed disk) and format recover.

>  The defrag tool is the same which MS DOS 6 bundled later on.
> 
>  New in version 4.5: "batch enhander" and a disk editor, the

>  ncache disk cache (faster than smartdrive / smartdrv) and diag.
> 
>  Version 5 improves the disk editor further and bundles 4DOS

>  in a variant called NDOS. By now, 4DOS is sort of free/open.
> 
>  Version 6 adds Win3.1 icons and "diskreet" and improves the

>  system info. The unerase tool now supports the same optional
>  delete tracking driver as MS / central point undelete does.
> 
>  Version 7 adds support for compressed disks (doublespace,

>  stacker and superstor formats) and norton disk doctor. Would
>  be good to know which features the disk doctor had exactly.
> 
>  The final DOS version 8 just adds some Win3.1 related tools.

>  Later versions gradually add Win9x, FAT32, WinNT etc. support
>  and features specific to Windows, like a 

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[tsiegel--- via Freedos-user]

Does spinright still have a dos version of their software posted 
anywhere? I seem to recall, that was a really good utility.  I 
unfortunately never had the money to purchase it, and I gave up on 
Norton Utilities after paying 50 bucks more for the advanced version of 
4.5, then got the same upgrade price as those who didn't, so I 
considered that bad marketing, poor customer retention, and just bailed 
on the whole Norton brand, and never dropped another dollar on anything 
Norton related, and that continues to this day.


I know spinright had some upgrades from their dos package into the early 
windows era, but I lost track after that, so no clue where it is now, or 
even if it's still around.  Nonetheless, it was a good utility for hard 
disk maintenance when it was out.


On 5/15/2024 8:45 PM, Rober To via Freedos-user wrote:

Hi everybody:

Other suggestions:

https://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk


http://www.partition-saving.com/



En miércoles, 15 de mayo de 2024, 03:46:41 CEST, Karen Lewellen via 
Freedos-user  escribió:



Eric,
While I will work through this list of course, you would need to reach 
the

part of that Wikipedia article that talks of Norton 8, I honestly did not
even start using a computer until 1989, and did not own a copy of Norton
Utilities until  after 200 at the earliest.
I used it as an example, because the tools were grouped under the same
organizational umbrella, designed to support it each other in solid
diagnostic support if that makes sense.
Kind of like spinwrite tools, instead of separate programs that may or 
may

not play well together.
will see how well these suggestions work with speech though.
Thanks,
Karen



On Wed, 15 May 2024, Eric Auer via Freedos-user wrote:

>
> Hi Karen,
>
> the utilities recommended by Rober To sound useful:
>
> HDAT2 harddisk repair and diagnostics ATA, ATAPI, SATA, USB, SCSI
>
> ASTRA Advanced Sysinfo Tool and Reporting Assistant
>
> HWiNFO system information, monitoring and diagnostics
>
>>  Do you recall the items in norton utilities?
>
> There is a wikipedia article about them:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Utilities
>
> The first version in 1982 included:
>
> unerase - Freedos comes with a simple undelete tool
> filefix - "repairs damaged files" (?)
> disklook - apparently a floppy disk cluster map display?
>
> secmod - floppy disk sector changer (disk editor, I guess?)
> filehide - Freedos attrib should be sufficient for that
> bathide - related to filehide
>
> timemark - "displays date, time, elapsed time"
> scratr - sets colors, you can use ANSI and PROMPT for that
> reverse - sets colors to black on white
>
> clear - you can use cls for that
> filesort - sorts directories on disk
> diskopt - tunes floppy access speed
>
> beep - just beeps the speaker
> print - prints files
>
> Which free and open tools for directory sorting and
> disk editors do we have in the distro at this time?
>
> I guess diskopt works by creating an interlaced floppy
> sector format, which tools do we have for this style?
>
> According to wikipedia, Norton Utilities 2.0 added filefind
> and renames print to lprint because MS DOS 2.0 already came
> with a tool called print itself.
>
> In version 3.0, you get additional tools for file size and
> directory listings, system information, text search, wiping
> of disks and files etc.
>
> Which tools do we recommend for directory listings, file size
> info and wiping? For size info, I would use the GNU "du" tool,
> which is available as DJGPP compiled DOS binary.
>
> What could we recommend for finding files and text? I guess
> the GNU tools "find" and "grep" would be useful choices here?
> Similar for "wipe".
>
> Version 3.1 adds unerase and unremove directory tools.
>
> New in version 4: Defrag tool (speed disk) and format recover.
> The defrag tool is the same which MS DOS 6 bundled later on.
>
> New in version 4.5: "batch enhander" and a disk editor, the
> ncache disk cache (faster than smartdrive / smartdrv) and diag.
>
> Version 5 improves the disk editor further and bundles 4DOS
> in a variant called NDOS. By now, 4DOS is sort of free/open.
>
> Version 6 adds Win3.1 icons and "diskreet" and improves the
> system info. The unerase tool now supports the same optional
> delete tracking driver as MS / central point undelete does.
>
> Version 7 adds support for compressed disks (doublespace,
> stacker and superstor formats) and norton disk doctor. Would
> be good to know which features the disk doctor had exactly.
>
> The final DOS version 8 just adds some Win3.1 related tools.
> Later versions gradually add Win9x, FAT32, WinNT etc. support
> and features specific to Windows, like a registry editor. Even
> a line of products for Apple Macintosh existed. Competitors to
> Norton Utilities: Central Point PC Tools, various smaller ones.
>
> The author of spinrite claims norton disk doctor is a rip of it:
> https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-666.htm
> Spinrite scans disks for recoverable files and even tries 

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[Rober To via Freedos-user]

 Hi everybody:
Other suggestions:
https://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk


http://www.partition-saving.com/


En miércoles, 15 de mayo de 2024, 03:46:41 CEST, Karen Lewellen via 
Freedos-user  escribió:  
 
 Eric,
While I will work through this list of course, you would need to reach the 
part of that Wikipedia article that talks of Norton 8, I honestly did not 
even start using a computer until 1989, and did not own a copy of Norton 
Utilities until  after 200 at the earliest.
I used it as an example, because the tools were grouped under the same 
organizational umbrella, designed to support it each other in solid 
diagnostic support if that makes sense.
Kind of like spinwrite tools, instead of separate programs that may or may 
not play well together.
will see how well these suggestions work with speech though.
Thanks,
Karen



On Wed, 15 May 2024, Eric Auer via Freedos-user wrote:

>
> Hi Karen,
>
> the utilities recommended by Rober To sound useful:
>
> HDAT2 harddisk repair and diagnostics ATA, ATAPI, SATA, USB, SCSI
>
> ASTRA Advanced Sysinfo Tool and Reporting Assistant
>
> HWiNFO system information, monitoring and diagnostics
>
>>  Do you recall the items in norton utilities?
>
> There is a wikipedia article about them:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Utilities
>
> The first version in 1982 included:
>
> unerase - Freedos comes with a simple undelete tool
> filefix - "repairs damaged files" (?)
> disklook - apparently a floppy disk cluster map display?
>
> secmod - floppy disk sector changer (disk editor, I guess?)
> filehide - Freedos attrib should be sufficient for that
> bathide - related to filehide
>
> timemark - "displays date, time, elapsed time"
> scratr - sets colors, you can use ANSI and PROMPT for that
> reverse - sets colors to black on white
>
> clear - you can use cls for that
> filesort - sorts directories on disk
> diskopt - tunes floppy access speed
>
> beep - just beeps the speaker
> print - prints files
>
> Which free and open tools for directory sorting and
> disk editors do we have in the distro at this time?
>
> I guess diskopt works by creating an interlaced floppy
> sector format, which tools do we have for this style?
>
> According to wikipedia, Norton Utilities 2.0 added filefind
> and renames print to lprint because MS DOS 2.0 already came
> with a tool called print itself.
>
> In version 3.0, you get additional tools for file size and
> directory listings, system information, text search, wiping
> of disks and files etc.
>
> Which tools do we recommend for directory listings, file size
> info and wiping? For size info, I would use the GNU "du" tool,
> which is available as DJGPP compiled DOS binary.
>
> What could we recommend for finding files and text? I guess
> the GNU tools "find" and "grep" would be useful choices here?
> Similar for "wipe".
>
> Version 3.1 adds unerase and unremove directory tools.
>
> New in version 4: Defrag tool (speed disk) and format recover.
> The defrag tool is the same which MS DOS 6 bundled later on.
>
> New in version 4.5: "batch enhander" and a disk editor, the
> ncache disk cache (faster than smartdrive / smartdrv) and diag.
>
> Version 5 improves the disk editor further and bundles 4DOS
> in a variant called NDOS. By now, 4DOS is sort of free/open.
>
> Version 6 adds Win3.1 icons and "diskreet" and improves the
> system info. The unerase tool now supports the same optional
> delete tracking driver as MS / central point undelete does.
>
> Version 7 adds support for compressed disks (doublespace,
> stacker and superstor formats) and norton disk doctor. Would
> be good to know which features the disk doctor had exactly.
>
> The final DOS version 8 just adds some Win3.1 related tools.
> Later versions gradually add Win9x, FAT32, WinNT etc. support
> and features specific to Windows, like a registry editor. Even
> a line of products for Apple Macintosh existed. Competitors to
> Norton Utilities: Central Point PC Tools, various smaller ones.
>
> The author of spinrite claims norton disk doctor is a rip of it:
> https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-666.htm
> Spinrite scans disks for recoverable files and even tries some
> tricks to reconstruct data from almost unreadable sectors, but
> only supports 128 GB style CHS, not LBA.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpinRite claims FreeDOS bundled
> with SpinRite to trigger some 16-4-8-bit CHS overflow > 128 GB?
>
> Well-known free/open alternatives are photorec and testdisk.
>
> The batch enhancer is similar to our v8 power tools, I guess.
> It can beep and show messages in color and with text boxes etc.
>
> Regards, Eric
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
>


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
  

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[Karen Lewellen via Freedos-user]

Eric,
While I will work through this list of course, you would need to reach the 
part of that Wikipedia article that talks of Norton 8, I honestly did not 
even start using a computer until 1989, and did not own a copy of Norton 
Utilities until  after 200 at the earliest.
I used it as an example, because the tools were grouped under the same 
organizational umbrella, designed to support it each other in solid 
diagnostic support if that makes sense.
Kind of like spinwrite tools, instead of separate programs that may or may 
not play well together.

will see how well these suggestions work with speech though.
Thanks,
Karen



On Wed, 15 May 2024, Eric Auer via Freedos-user wrote:



Hi Karen,

the utilities recommended by Rober To sound useful:

HDAT2 harddisk repair and diagnostics ATA, ATAPI, SATA, USB, SCSI

ASTRA Advanced Sysinfo Tool and Reporting Assistant

HWiNFO system information, monitoring and diagnostics


 Do you recall the items in norton utilities?


There is a wikipedia article about them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Utilities

The first version in 1982 included:

unerase - Freedos comes with a simple undelete tool
filefix - "repairs damaged files" (?)
disklook - apparently a floppy disk cluster map display?

secmod - floppy disk sector changer (disk editor, I guess?)
filehide - Freedos attrib should be sufficient for that
bathide - related to filehide

timemark - "displays date, time, elapsed time"
scratr - sets colors, you can use ANSI and PROMPT for that
reverse - sets colors to black on white

clear - you can use cls for that
filesort - sorts directories on disk
diskopt - tunes floppy access speed

beep - just beeps the speaker
print - prints files

Which free and open tools for directory sorting and
disk editors do we have in the distro at this time?

I guess diskopt works by creating an interlaced floppy
sector format, which tools do we have for this style?

According to wikipedia, Norton Utilities 2.0 added filefind
and renames print to lprint because MS DOS 2.0 already came
with a tool called print itself.

In version 3.0, you get additional tools for file size and
directory listings, system information, text search, wiping
of disks and files etc.

Which tools do we recommend for directory listings, file size
info and wiping? For size info, I would use the GNU "du" tool,
which is available as DJGPP compiled DOS binary.

What could we recommend for finding files and text? I guess
the GNU tools "find" and "grep" would be useful choices here?
Similar for "wipe".

Version 3.1 adds unerase and unremove directory tools.

New in version 4: Defrag tool (speed disk) and format recover.
The defrag tool is the same which MS DOS 6 bundled later on.

New in version 4.5: "batch enhander" and a disk editor, the
ncache disk cache (faster than smartdrive / smartdrv) and diag.

Version 5 improves the disk editor further and bundles 4DOS
in a variant called NDOS. By now, 4DOS is sort of free/open.

Version 6 adds Win3.1 icons and "diskreet" and improves the
system info. The unerase tool now supports the same optional
delete tracking driver as MS / central point undelete does.

Version 7 adds support for compressed disks (doublespace,
stacker and superstor formats) and norton disk doctor. Would
be good to know which features the disk doctor had exactly.

The final DOS version 8 just adds some Win3.1 related tools.
Later versions gradually add Win9x, FAT32, WinNT etc. support
and features specific to Windows, like a registry editor. Even
a line of products for Apple Macintosh existed. Competitors to
Norton Utilities: Central Point PC Tools, various smaller ones.

The author of spinrite claims norton disk doctor is a rip of it:
https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-666.htm
Spinrite scans disks for recoverable files and even tries some
tricks to reconstruct data from almost unreadable sectors, but
only supports 128 GB style CHS, not LBA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpinRite claims FreeDOS bundled
with SpinRite to trigger some 16-4-8-bit CHS overflow > 128 GB?

Well-known free/open alternatives are photorec and testdisk.

The batch enhancer is similar to our v8 power tools, I guess.
It can beep and show messages in color and with text boxes etc.

Regards, Eric




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user





___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[Eric Auer via Freedos-user]

Hi Karen,

the utilities recommended by Rober To sound useful:

HDAT2 harddisk repair and diagnostics ATA, ATAPI, SATA, USB, SCSI

ASTRA Advanced Sysinfo Tool and Reporting Assistant

HWiNFO system information, monitoring and diagnostics


Do you recall the items in norton utilities?


There is a wikipedia article about them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Utilities

The first version in 1982 included:

unerase - Freedos comes with a simple undelete tool
filefix - "repairs damaged files" (?)
disklook - apparently a floppy disk cluster map display?

secmod - floppy disk sector changer (disk editor, I guess?)
filehide - Freedos attrib should be sufficient for that
bathide - related to filehide

timemark - "displays date, time, elapsed time"
scratr - sets colors, you can use ANSI and PROMPT for that
reverse - sets colors to black on white

clear - you can use cls for that
filesort - sorts directories on disk
diskopt - tunes floppy access speed

beep - just beeps the speaker
print - prints files

Which free and open tools for directory sorting and
disk editors do we have in the distro at this time?

I guess diskopt works by creating an interlaced floppy
sector format, which tools do we have for this style?

According to wikipedia, Norton Utilities 2.0 added filefind
and renames print to lprint because MS DOS 2.0 already came
with a tool called print itself.

In version 3.0, you get additional tools for file size and
directory listings, system information, text search, wiping
of disks and files etc.

Which tools do we recommend for directory listings, file size
info and wiping? For size info, I would use the GNU "du" tool,
which is available as DJGPP compiled DOS binary.

What could we recommend for finding files and text? I guess
the GNU tools "find" and "grep" would be useful choices here?
Similar for "wipe".

Version 3.1 adds unerase and unremove directory tools.

New in version 4: Defrag tool (speed disk) and format recover.
The defrag tool is the same which MS DOS 6 bundled later on.

New in version 4.5: "batch enhander" and a disk editor, the
ncache disk cache (faster than smartdrive / smartdrv) and diag.

Version 5 improves the disk editor further and bundles 4DOS
in a variant called NDOS. By now, 4DOS is sort of free/open.

Version 6 adds Win3.1 icons and "diskreet" and improves the
system info. The unerase tool now supports the same optional
delete tracking driver as MS / central point undelete does.

Version 7 adds support for compressed disks (doublespace,
stacker and superstor formats) and norton disk doctor. Would
be good to know which features the disk doctor had exactly.

The final DOS version 8 just adds some Win3.1 related tools.
Later versions gradually add Win9x, FAT32, WinNT etc. support
and features specific to Windows, like a registry editor. Even
a line of products for Apple Macintosh existed. Competitors to
Norton Utilities: Central Point PC Tools, various smaller ones.

The author of spinrite claims norton disk doctor is a rip of it:
https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-666.htm
Spinrite scans disks for recoverable files and even tries some
tricks to reconstruct data from almost unreadable sectors, but
only supports 128 GB style CHS, not LBA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpinRite claims FreeDOS bundled
with SpinRite to trigger some 16-4-8-bit CHS overflow > 128 GB?

Well-known free/open alternatives are photorec and testdisk.

The batch enhancer is similar to our v8 power tools, I guess.
It can beep and show messages in color and with text boxes etc.

Regards, Eric




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[Karen Lewellen via Freedos-user]

Hi Eric,
Do you recall the items in norton utilities?
If not, I can post a list of the various tools?
I am hoping for a  collection of options if that resonates.
Norton for example lets you create a repair boot disc, which would be a 
fine  start.
that disc then had items to check your hard drive stability, to repair 
problems, manage formatting  those sorts of things.

Does that help?
Will certainly check out the item you referenced here too.
Karen



On Tue, 14 May 2024, Eric Auer via Freedos-user wrote:


Hi Karen,
please specify the type of diagnostics you would be interested in.

For example PCISLEEP can give you a list of PCI devices in your PC,
but you seem to be interested in disk or filesystem analysis etc.?

Maybe tools which display the SMART health status of your disks?
I remember having used tools for that and to configure disk sleep.
SMARTUDM (1997-2003-?) from sysinfolab was one I tried. No idea
whether there are variants supporting post-IDE/ATA/SATA drives.
SMARTDFT / DFT 3.00 also displayed or logged SMART disk status.

Regards, Eric

PS: Interesting to notice that Veit's tools still exist on
https://kannegieser.net/veit/programm/index_e.htm


 My hope is that there is also dos based  software supporting the care and
 diagnostics of that infrastructure?



 For example,  while I have Norton Utilities for DOS, it cannot see my
 larger drives and so forth.






___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[Rober To via Freedos-user]

 Hi, some ideas:
HDAT2/CBL Hard Disk Repair Utility


| 
| 
|  | 
HDAT2/CBL Hard Disk Repair Utility

HDAT2 is program for test or diagnostics of ATA/ATAPI/SATA, SSD, USB and SCSI 
devices.
 |

 |

 |


ASTRA - Advanced Sysinfo Tool and Reporting Assistant


| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
ASTRA - Advanced Sysinfo Tool and Reporting Assistant

ASTRA performs computer configuration analysis and provides detailed 
information on your computer hardware and i...
 |

 |

 |





HWiNFO - Free System Information, Monitoring and Diagnostics


| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
HWiNFO - Free System Information, Monitoring and Diagnostics

Free Hardware Analysis, Monitoring and Reporting. In-depth Hardware 
Information, Real-Time System Monitoring, Re...
 |

 |

 |







En martes, 14 de mayo de 2024, 20:28:07 CEST, Eric Auer via Freedos-user 
 escribió:  
 
 Hi Karen,

please specify the type of diagnostics you would be interested in.

For example PCISLEEP can give you a list of PCI devices in your PC,
but you seem to be interested in disk or filesystem analysis etc.?

Maybe tools which display the SMART health status of your disks?
I remember having used tools for that and to configure disk sleep.
SMARTUDM (1997-2003-?) from sysinfolab was one I tried. No idea
whether there are variants supporting post-IDE/ATA/SATA drives.
SMARTDFT / DFT 3.00 also displayed or logged SMART disk status.

Regards, Eric

PS: Interesting to notice that Veit's tools still exist on
https://kannegieser.net/veit/programm/index_e.htm

> My hope is that there is also dos based  software supporting the care 
> and diagnostics of that infrastructure?

> For example,  while I have Norton Utilities for DOS, it cannot see my 
> larger drives and so forth.





___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
  ___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS diagnostic tools?

[Eric Auer via Freedos-user]

Hi Karen,

please specify the type of diagnostics you would be interested in.

For example PCISLEEP can give you a list of PCI devices in your PC,
but you seem to be interested in disk or filesystem analysis etc.?

Maybe tools which display the SMART health status of your disks?
I remember having used tools for that and to configure disk sleep.
SMARTUDM (1997-2003-?) from sysinfolab was one I tried. No idea
whether there are variants supporting post-IDE/ATA/SATA drives.
SMARTDFT / DFT 3.00 also displayed or logged SMART disk status.

Regards, Eric

PS: Interesting to notice that Veit's tools still exist on
https://kannegieser.net/veit/programm/index_e.htm

My hope is that there is also dos based  software supporting the care 
and diagnostics of that infrastructure?


For example,  while I have Norton Utilities for DOS, it cannot see my 
larger drives and so forth.






___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dos navigator

[Travis Siegel via Freedos-user]

On Wed, 8 May 2024, Daniel Essin via Freedos-user wrote:


Try it in a VM



Yeah, I would, but that's not really an option for me.


On 5/8/24 6:21 PM, Travis Siegel via Freedos-user wrote:
I found my copy of PTS DOS Source, and was digging through them to see 
some of the differences between that and opendos, for which I also 
have the sources, and I ran across the dos navigator menuing system 
(at least I'm pretty sure it's a menu system, don't currently have a 
dos machine setup anywhere, so can't run it). But, interestingly 
enough, it's opensource as well, and I was curious if free dos would 
be willing to include it, there's a lot of traffic on the list at 
times looking for a decent menuing system, dos navigator could be the 
answer.  PTS DOS uses it, so why not?


It can be found at: https://www.ritlabs.com/en/products/dn/

just in case anyone is interested in taking a look.




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] dos navigator

[Daniel Essin via Freedos-user]

Try it in a VM

On 5/8/24 6:21 PM, Travis Siegel via Freedos-user wrote:
I found my copy of PTS DOS Source, and was digging through them to see 
some of the differences between that and opendos, for which I also 
have the sources, and I ran across the dos navigator menuing system 
(at least I'm pretty sure it's a menu system, don't currently have a 
dos machine setup anywhere, so can't run it). But, interestingly 
enough, it's opensource as well, and I was curious if free dos would 
be willing to include it, there's a lot of traffic on the list at 
times looking for a decent menuing system, dos navigator could be the 
answer.  PTS DOS uses it, so why not?


It can be found at: https://www.ritlabs.com/en/products/dn/

just in case anyone is interested in taking a look.




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS based mail clients

[Jose Senna via Freedos-user]

 Bret Johnson said:
 > The second difference is that IMAP is designed
 > to be used in a client-server configuration where
 > the e-mails stay stored on the server...

  But they also remain in the server if the POP3 client
  does not send the DELE command.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Mode - My Two Cente

[EdzUp via Freedos-user]

DOS can have. GUI like Linux with things like Windows 3.x, or even the
Windows 95/98 were on top of a DOS system.

On Fri, 18 Aug 2023, 03:26 tsiegel--- via Freedos-user, <
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Only one correction.
>
> Windows and MacOSX are certainly graphical by default, though both have
> text terminals very similar to the dos prompt.
>
> On the other hand, Linux, bsd, and other unix versions are also text
> interfaces by default.  If you don't install a windows manager (such as
> gnome), then there is no graphical interface on linux.
>
> In that regard, it's very similar to dos.
>
> Text by default, but graphical by choice (just like running windows)
>
> Mac OSX is different, because it's configured by default to run a GUI,
> which a basic linux system out of the box doesn't do unless it's configured
> differently by it's distributor (ubuntu, debian, and so on.)
>
>
> On 8/18/2023 1:51 AM, Norby Droid via Freedos-user wrote:
>
> I think there may be a bit of confusion we need to let new DOS users aware
> of, and that is DOS is a "Text-Mode" system and not graphical like Windows,
> Linux, MacOS, etc.
>
> DOS by nature is only text (although graphics is possible)
>
> Maybe make a distinction between "Text Resolution" and "Graphic/Screen
> Resolution"
>
> DOS when booted is 80 characters with 25 lines using an 8x16 pixel font.
> This could be called a text resolution of 640x400 (not 640x480 which is
> actually 30 lines of 80 characters).
>
> You can change the number of lines and the number of characters per line
> as well as the width and height of the font (like 8x32 or 9x16) which will
> give ya more room or less depending on your choices as well as change the
> look of the text, but this is still ALL text not graphics.
>
> Also of note is that although ya can be making changes, DOS has the
> tendency to revert back to its default state of 25x80 8x16 native font when
> he screen gets cleared or when exiting different software.
>
> This is my two cents about DOS Mode.  Just remember DOS is Text (by
> default) not Graphics.
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing 
> listFreedos-user@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Mode - My Two Cente

[tsiegel--- via Freedos-user]

Only one correction.

Windows and MacOSX are certainly graphical by default, though both have 
text terminals very similar to the dos prompt.


On the other hand, Linux, bsd, and other unix versions are also text 
interfaces by default.  If you don't install a windows manager (such as 
gnome), then there is no graphical interface on linux.


In that regard, it's very similar to dos.

Text by default, but graphical by choice (just like running windows)

Mac OSX is different, because it's configured by default to run a GUI, 
which a basic linux system out of the box doesn't do unless it's 
configured differently by it's distributor (ubuntu, debian, and so on.)



On 8/18/2023 1:51 AM, Norby Droid via Freedos-user wrote:
I think there may be a bit of confusion we need to let new DOS users 
aware of, and that is DOS is a "Text-Mode" system and not graphical 
like Windows, Linux, MacOS, etc.


DOS by nature is only text (although graphics is possible)

Maybe make a distinction between "Text Resolution" and "Graphic/Screen 
Resolution"


DOS when booted is 80 characters with 25 lines using an 8x16 pixel 
font.  This could be called a text resolution of 640x400 (not 640x480 
which is actually 30 lines of 80 characters).


You can change the number of lines and the number of characters per 
line as well as the width and height of the font (like 8x32 or 9x16) 
which will give ya more room or less depending on your choices as well 
as change the look of the text, but this is still ALL text not graphics.


Also of note is that although ya can be making changes, DOS has the 
tendency to revert back to its default state of 25x80 8x16 native font 
when he screen gets cleared or when exiting different software.


This is my two cents about DOS Mode. Just remember DOS is Text (by 
default) not Graphics.



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Dos

[Nicholas Bernhard via Freedos-user]

 I had FreeDOS running on a ThinkPad 701C, which used a 486 CPU.

NJB

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 04:31:40PM -0500, Jim Hall via Freedos-user wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:14 PM Rahim Fakir via Freedos-user
>  wrote:
> >
> > Whats The main Diference between freedos and dos.
> > Which os The best, dos freedos runs a 486?
> 
> 
> As Bryan said, FreeDOS is a more modern version of DOS.
> 
> Also, FreeDOS is open source software. Very early versions of MS-DOS
> (v1.25 and v2.0, at https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS) are available
> under an open source license, but these were very primitive versions
> of "DOS" that don't have a lot of functionality. For example, MS-DOS
> 2.0 was the first version to support directories.
> 
> You also can't download (legally) a "freeware" copy of MS-DOS, that I
> know of (certainly not one that is of much use, such as MS-DOS 5 or
> MS-DOS 6.x).
> 
> By "more modern," we mean that FreeDOS has more features and includes
> more tools than MS-DOS ever did. For example, the FreeDOS distribution
> includes apps and tools, including some network utilities. We also
> include compilers and assemblers and editors, so you can write your
> own DOS apps to run on FreeDOS.
> 
> And yes, FreeDOS will run on a '486 CPU.
> 
> 
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Dos

[Jim Hall via Freedos-user]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:14 PM Rahim Fakir via Freedos-user
 wrote:
>
> Whats The main Diference between freedos and dos.
> Which os The best, dos freedos runs a 486?


As Bryan said, FreeDOS is a more modern version of DOS.

Also, FreeDOS is open source software. Very early versions of MS-DOS
(v1.25 and v2.0, at https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS) are available
under an open source license, but these were very primitive versions
of "DOS" that don't have a lot of functionality. For example, MS-DOS
2.0 was the first version to support directories.

You also can't download (legally) a "freeware" copy of MS-DOS, that I
know of (certainly not one that is of much use, such as MS-DOS 5 or
MS-DOS 6.x).

By "more modern," we mean that FreeDOS has more features and includes
more tools than MS-DOS ever did. For example, the FreeDOS distribution
includes apps and tools, including some network utilities. We also
include compilers and assemblers and editors, so you can write your
own DOS apps to run on FreeDOS.

And yes, FreeDOS will run on a '486 CPU.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] Dos

[Bryan Kilgallin via Freedos-user]

Hi Rahim:


Whats The main Diference between freedos and dos.


FreeDOS is more modernised, with extended functions.
--
members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS and PDFs (Was Re: Update wiki info on installing ftp on a virualbox guest?

[Hollowone PL]

There is Acrobat Reader 1.0 for MSDOS but it does not support modern PDF
format. I'm sure it has evolved so much that none of the current PDFs work
with it anyway.
It's available though on winworldpc for download and check.

If that doesn't work then I assume porting some open source to DOS is the
only option to get legitimate MS DOS support for the format with this or
that rendering option (VESA/SVGA based I assume)

-h1

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 5:14 PM Michael Brutman 
wrote:

> I think it is pretty safe to assume that everybody using FreeDOS in the
> last 10 to 20 years has access to another, more capable device that can
> read PDFs.  Even low end cell phones have had this capability for the past
> 5 years.
>
> I started with pure TXT files, composed on the same DOS machine that I did
> my coding and testing on.  But even in 2013 those files were adding up to
> more than 210K across 16 files.  Just like I migrated from using a hardware
> 80386 to a cross compiler for the code in 2011, I migrated the documented
> for PDF in 2015.  The PDF format lets me do far better formatting and
> screen shots, which are useful for clear documentation.
>
> As cool as it would be to have everything self contained and self hosted
> within DOS, that's not our reality.  I think it's more important to use the
> appropriate tools for the job, PDF is very good for documentation - just
> not on DOS.  Given that everybody probably has access to something that can
> read PDFs, there is not much of a reason to downgrade carefully written and
> formatted documentation.
>
> I am concerned about these kinds of things because I do put a lot of
> energy into ensuring my work is properly packaged.  It's probably possible
> to export the PDF has HTML, but again I'd want to do that myself to ensure
> the formatting stays reasonable.  (And even then, the generated HTML is not
> going to be usable on the 16 bit machines with CGA that I target.)
>
>
> -Mike
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS was dead...

[Aitor Santamaría]

Hi,

Ok sorry, got the reply later, and also the opinion I would vote for.

Aitor


On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 05:13, Jon Brase  wrote:

> >Apr 14, 2021 2:00:05 PM Ralf Quint :
>
> >And I stand by my comments that none of Windows 9x/ME is "running on
> DOS". I don't have the time right now to provide the detailed proof for
> that, but just look at the addresses of some of the DOS services before the
> booting of the Windows 9x GUI and afterwards (in a DOS prompt). They will
> be decisively different. You can install a TSR before the booting of
> Windows 9x GUI that redirects some of the DOS vectors to produce some debug
> output and you will not see that debug output when calling the same DOS
> vector while running under Windows 9x. That was also the problem with some
> DOS drivers for some SCSI adapters for example, which would not work under
> Windows 95, until the manufacturer provided a proper Windows driver for it.
>
> I will note that Windows 95 *could* use DOS drivers. I/O performance
> suffered horribly since DOS drivers weren't thread safe, but there was a
> copy of DOS in the system VM for this purpose, even if it had nothing to do
> under normal circumstances.


+1
For performance reasons, rewritten into VDOS, VREDIR, ... But DOS lies
still in every VM and its heart beats there.

Aitor
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS was dead...

[Aitor Santamaría]

Hi Ralf,

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 19:11, Ralf Quint  wrote:

> On 4/14/2021 8:54 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
> >
> >>   Reality is, Windows 95 dos and Windows 98SE DOS is not really dos per
> se
> > Wrong.
> Actually, in that part, Michael was correct. And as people like you seem
> to pushing that old myth of "Windows 9x runs on top of DOS", one of my
> next projects when I find time will be to come up with the definitive
> proof for that...
>

I am curious about this. What do you mean here? :)
In "Uncovered Windows95" precisely the opposite (WIndows 9X runs over DOS)
was proven by renaming COMMAND.COM to KRNL386.EXE...
And apparently Win32 applications run in VM0 with the "iddle call" beating
there.

Aitor
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS music creation software?

[Robert Riebisch]

Hi Rugxulo,

> What about a so-called "tracker"?
> 
> * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker
> 
> Here's a few links that I found (off the top of my head):
> 
> * https://hornet.org/music/programs/trackers/scrmt321.zip
> * https://hornet.org/music/contests/mc6/files/it214p3.zip
> * https://github.com/herrnst/impulsetracker
> * https://github.com/MobyGamer/MONOTONE/releases/tag/0.3.9

I'd like to add:

RAD - Reality Adlib Tracker
https://www.3eality.com/productions/reality-adlib-tracker
DOS versions at https://www.3eality.com/Public/Releases/RAD/DOS/


Adlib Tracker II
http://adlibtracker.net/

Sample songs by Diode Milliampere made on Toshiba Libretto 70 CT:
https://diodemilliampere.bandcamp.com/

Cheers,
Robert
-- 
BTTR Software   https://www.bttr-software.de/
DOS ain't dead  https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS music creation software?

[Felix G.]

Hello!
If the pc speaker is alright with you, try Piano Man by Neil J. Rubenking.
Best,
Felix

Am Do., 1. Sept. 2022 um 08:19 Uhr schrieb Mart Zirnask :
>
> Not sure about the keyboard part, but there was also Sound Club, an
> early 90s sound editor by Skype founders Jaan Tallinn and Ahti Heinla:
> http://bluemoon.ee/history/scdos/index.html
>
> Some music made with Sound Club:
> http://digitiger.byethost7.com/sclub.htm?i=1
>
> Some more details -- apparently it did have something called "virtual 
> keyboard":
> https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/3599781
>
> Obviously, I'm pointing this out mostly because of the authors (I'm
> Estonian, and so are they). It is really cool that they still keep
> their old homepage available; apparently it is from the pre-Skype
> days:
> http://bluemoon.ee/history/index.html
>
> Mart
>
> On 01/09/2022, Karen Lewellen  wrote:
> > thanks for all those prospects.
> > Perhaps I should not have used the gaming concept as a framer, figuring
> > there   were no musicians here.
> > My goal is to use my computer keyboard as a music one  in pure DOS.
> > I have found a copy of cakewalk for DOS,  but still appreciate your
> > options too.
> > Karen
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Rugxulo wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:45 AM Karen Lewellen
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I use dos, google has removed access to YouTube for low graphics
> >>> browsers.
> >>> If you have an answer, care to share?
> >>
> >> The YouTube link just shows "Sound Blaster Pro Intelligent Organ"
> >> (Creative Technology, 1991).
> >>
> >> What about a so-called "tracker"?
> >>
> >> * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker
> >>
> >> Here's a few links that I found (off the top of my head):
> >>
> >> * https://hornet.org/music/programs/trackers/scrmt321.zip
> >> * https://hornet.org/music/contests/mc6/files/it214p3.zip
> >> * https://github.com/herrnst/impulsetracker
> >> * https://github.com/MobyGamer/MONOTONE/releases/tag/0.3.9
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, Björn Morell wrote:
> >>>
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAt1rWF-kqE
> 
>  Den 2022-08-30 kl. 12:02, skrev Karen Lewellen:
> >  with all of the vintage gaming hinted at here, was wondering if
> > anyone
> >  knows of a simple pure DOS program that in theory allows one to treat
> >  their computer keyboard like a music one?
> >  Need not tap dance as it were, just allow for some basic work.
> >  Ideas?
> >  Karen
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Freedos-user mailing list
> >> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
> >>
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS music creation software?

[Mart Zirnask]

Not sure about the keyboard part, but there was also Sound Club, an
early 90s sound editor by Skype founders Jaan Tallinn and Ahti Heinla:
http://bluemoon.ee/history/scdos/index.html

Some music made with Sound Club:
http://digitiger.byethost7.com/sclub.htm?i=1

Some more details -- apparently it did have something called "virtual keyboard":
https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/3599781

Obviously, I'm pointing this out mostly because of the authors (I'm
Estonian, and so are they). It is really cool that they still keep
their old homepage available; apparently it is from the pre-Skype
days:
http://bluemoon.ee/history/index.html

Mart

On 01/09/2022, Karen Lewellen  wrote:
> thanks for all those prospects.
> Perhaps I should not have used the gaming concept as a framer, figuring
> there   were no musicians here.
> My goal is to use my computer keyboard as a music one  in pure DOS.
> I have found a copy of cakewalk for DOS,  but still appreciate your
> options too.
> Karen
>
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Rugxulo wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:45 AM Karen Lewellen
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I use dos, google has removed access to YouTube for low graphics
>>> browsers.
>>> If you have an answer, care to share?
>>
>> The YouTube link just shows "Sound Blaster Pro Intelligent Organ"
>> (Creative Technology, 1991).
>>
>> What about a so-called "tracker"?
>>
>> * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker
>>
>> Here's a few links that I found (off the top of my head):
>>
>> * https://hornet.org/music/programs/trackers/scrmt321.zip
>> * https://hornet.org/music/contests/mc6/files/it214p3.zip
>> * https://github.com/herrnst/impulsetracker
>> * https://github.com/MobyGamer/MONOTONE/releases/tag/0.3.9
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, Björn Morell wrote:
>>>
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAt1rWF-kqE

 Den 2022-08-30 kl. 12:02, skrev Karen Lewellen:
>  with all of the vintage gaming hinted at here, was wondering if
> anyone
>  knows of a simple pure DOS program that in theory allows one to treat
>  their computer keyboard like a music one?
>  Need not tap dance as it were, just allow for some basic work.
>  Ideas?
>  Karen
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Freedos-user mailing list
>> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>>


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS music creation software?

[Karen Lewellen]

thanks for all those prospects.
Perhaps I should not have used the gaming concept as a framer, figuring 
there   were no musicians here.

My goal is to use my computer keyboard as a music one  in pure DOS.
I have found a copy of cakewalk for DOS,  but still appreciate your 
options too.

Karen



On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Rugxulo wrote:


Hi,

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:45 AM Karen Lewellen
 wrote:


I use dos, google has removed access to YouTube for low graphics browsers.
If you have an answer, care to share?


The YouTube link just shows "Sound Blaster Pro Intelligent Organ"
(Creative Technology, 1991).

What about a so-called "tracker"?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker

Here's a few links that I found (off the top of my head):

* https://hornet.org/music/programs/trackers/scrmt321.zip
* https://hornet.org/music/contests/mc6/files/it214p3.zip
* https://github.com/herrnst/impulsetracker
* https://github.com/MobyGamer/MONOTONE/releases/tag/0.3.9



On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, Björn Morell wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAt1rWF-kqE

Den 2022-08-30 kl. 12:02, skrev Karen Lewellen:

 with all of the vintage gaming hinted at here, was wondering if anyone
 knows of a simple pure DOS program that in theory allows one to treat
 their computer keyboard like a music one?
 Need not tap dance as it were, just allow for some basic work.
 Ideas?
 Karen



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS music creation software?

[Rugxulo]

Hi again,

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:46 PM Rugxulo  wrote:
>
> What about a so-called "tracker"?
>
> * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker
>
> Here's a few links that I found (off the top of my head):

I forgot about Dr. Track:

* http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/sound/drtrack/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS music creation software?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:45 AM Karen Lewellen
 wrote:
>
> I use dos, google has removed access to YouTube for low graphics browsers.
> If you have an answer, care to share?

The YouTube link just shows "Sound Blaster Pro Intelligent Organ"
(Creative Technology, 1991).

What about a so-called "tracker"?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker

Here's a few links that I found (off the top of my head):

* https://hornet.org/music/programs/trackers/scrmt321.zip
* https://hornet.org/music/contests/mc6/files/it214p3.zip
* https://github.com/herrnst/impulsetracker
* https://github.com/MobyGamer/MONOTONE/releases/tag/0.3.9


> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, Björn Morell wrote:
>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAt1rWF-kqE
> >
> > Den 2022-08-30 kl. 12:02, skrev Karen Lewellen:
> >>  with all of the vintage gaming hinted at here, was wondering if anyone
> >>  knows of a simple pure DOS program that in theory allows one to treat
> >>  their computer keyboard like a music one?
> >>  Need not tap dance as it were, just allow for some basic work.
> >>  Ideas?
> >>  Karen


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS music creation software?

[Karen Lewellen]

I use dos, google has removed access to YouTube for low graphics browsers.
If you have an answer, care to share?



On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, Bj??rn Morell wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAt1rWF-kqE

Den 2022-08-30 kl. 12:02, skrev Karen Lewellen:

 with all of the vintage gaming hinted at here, was wondering if anyone
 knows of a simple pure DOS program that in theory allows one to treat
 their computer keyboard like a music one?
 Need not tap dance as it were, just allow for some basic work.
 Ideas?
 Karen




 ___
 Freedos-user mailing list
 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS music creation software?

[Lukas Satin]

I have this Digidesign SampleCell II card hardware ISA sampler for PC. Does
anyone have any experience with it? Some software? I would like to connect
it to MPC Studio (hardware + software on another PC)

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 1:03 PM Björn Morell  wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAt1rWF-kqE
> Den 2022-08-30 kl. 12:02, skrev Karen Lewellen:
>
> with all of the vintage gaming hinted at here, was wondering if anyone
> knows of a simple pure DOS program that in theory allows one to treat their
> computer keyboard like a music one?
> Need not tap dance as it were, just allow for some basic work.
> Ideas?
> Karen
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS music creation software?

[Björn Morell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAt1rWF-kqE

Den 2022-08-30 kl. 12:02, skrev Karen Lewellen:
with all of the vintage gaming hinted at here, was wondering if anyone 
knows of a simple pure DOS program that in theory allows one to treat 
their computer keyboard like a music one?

Need not tap dance as it were, just allow for some basic work.
Ideas?
Karen




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Aitor Santamaría]

Hello,


On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 01:28, Rugxulo  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:53 PM Aitor Santamaría 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:00, Rugxulo  wrote:
> >>
> >> I can send you my local copy (or show you how to get it) of the 3.2.2
> >> cross-compiler (i8086-msdos) that works under latest HX pre-releases.
> >> It has a built-in assembler and linker. It supports all memory models.
> >
> > THe links seem to work, why did you mention to send it? couldn't I
> download from that link?
> > And what do you mean that works under HX? I don't mind to compile under
> Windows11 or Linux if neccessary :)
>
> The Windows installer isn't DOS friendly. Besides, four target cpus
> with six memory models each is VERY bloated (especially because of six
> copies of huge "generics.ppu"). My local .7z of "8086 target only" is
> thus much, much smaller.
>
Ahh ok understood!
I'll gladly take it.


> But yes, it's meant to be a cross-compiler atop modern OSes. (Hey,
> since it still works under HX, I'll gladly use that.)
>
> > But I want it to run in 16-bit (Free)DOS.
>
> 16-bit host? No luck there.
>
No no, the assembled files to run under 16-bit :)

Aitor
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Ralf Quint]

On 7/7/2022 2:58 PM, Rugxulo wrote:


DeSmet C and IA16-ELF (GCC) both work fairly well (but not necessarily
every memory model).

* http://desmet-c.com/


DeSmet C has only 2 memory models (small and large, the later from v3.x 
onwards)  and is also using its own object file format and thus linker. 
(Tough there is an o2obj converter, but that is only intended to link 
modules written in DeSmet C to other languages/compilers that use the 
standard .OBJ file format).



Ralf




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:53 PM Aitor Santamaría  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:00, Rugxulo  wrote:
>>
>> I can send you my local copy (or show you how to get it) of the 3.2.2
>> cross-compiler (i8086-msdos) that works under latest HX pre-releases.
>> It has a built-in assembler and linker. It supports all memory models.
>
> THe links seem to work, why did you mention to send it? couldn't I download 
> from that link?
> And what do you mean that works under HX? I don't mind to compile under 
> Windows11 or Linux if neccessary :)

The Windows installer isn't DOS friendly. Besides, four target cpus
with six memory models each is VERY bloated (especially because of six
copies of huge "generics.ppu"). My local .7z of "8086 target only" is
thus much, much smaller.

But yes, it's meant to be a cross-compiler atop modern OSes. (Hey,
since it still works under HX, I'll gladly use that.)

> But I want it to run in 16-bit (Free)DOS.

16-bit host? No luck there.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Aitor Santamaría]

Hello,



On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:00, Rugxulo  wrote:

>
> > - Assembler - there is NASM, not compatible with MASM/WASM.  I guess
> there is still  (J)WASM as
> > alternative, as I assume that MASM/TASM haven't been neither open
> sourced nor actively maintained.
>
> Strictly speaking, OpenWatcom is "Open Source" (OSI) but not "Free
> software".

That is good enough for me :)
The best option for me would be MIT licensing, over the years I reached the
conclusion that it's the one that fits best my idea of open source software
(unlike GPL).

DeSmet C and IA16-ELF (GCC) both work fairly well (but not necessarily
> every memory model).
>
> * http://desmet-c.com/
> * https://github.com/tkchia/build-ia16/releases
>
> Thanks for the hints, specially the latter, that seems the same idea as
when FreePascal got the 16-bit flavour.


> > - Pascal: I admit I haven't tried FPC/16-bit yet, and see if I can
> happen to compile KEYB.  I am afraid it'll be hard
> > because the resident part of KEYB has a lot of assembler. TP/BP are now
> unmaintained (and not open sourced).
> > Similarly, if they close, we don't have an alternative 16-bit active
> open source Pascal compiler.
>
> * https://wiki.freepascal.org/DOS
> * https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/msdos/3.2.2/


The Wiki sounds good to me!


> I can send you my local copy (or show you how to get it) of the 3.2.2
> cross-compiler (i8086-msdos) that works under latest HX pre-releases.
> It has a built-in assembler and linker. It supports all memory models.
>
THe links seem to work, why did you mention to send it? couldn't I download
from that link?
And what do you mean that works under HX? I don't mind to compile under
Windows11 or Linux if neccessary :)
But I want it to run in 16-bit (Free)DOS.

Aitor
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Ralf Quint]

On 7/7/2022 9:59 AM, C. Masloch wrote:

On at 2022-07-07 09:39 -0700, Ralf Quint wrote:
Similar with NASM, where for some weird reasons, they made the 
assembler case-sensitive, which I would consider utter nonsense (also 
among my griefs with C(++)). And it really bites you if you are 
trying to link assembler modules with other programming languages. It 
also (deliberately) doesn't support some assembler instructions (as 
per Intel specs) just because it doesn't fit into their parser (LODS, 
MOVS, ...),


Fair enough on all the other points, but the support for string 
instructions is actually there. It just isn't done with explicit 
operands to the instruction to indicate the operand size and segment 
override (whereas I believe the symbol offset address you can specify 
to MASM is ignored). Instead, NASM supports eg lodsb / lodsw / lodsd, 
as well as segment override and a16 or a32 as prefixes. So for example 
you could have "a32 es lodsd". This syntax used to be documented in 
their instruction set reference, as forked by me. [1] 


As I mentioned, this is one of those changes that pretty much prevent 
you from assembling A LOT of older x86 source code from the early days 
of DOS (and x86).


Microsoft's MASM maintained full compatibility with Intel's own 
assembler, ASM86. And after all, Intel is the one entity that 
designed/defined x86. At least NASM  did not follow the stupid idea of 
AT (and gas, to me a typical Stallman idiosyncrasy, but apparently 
AT got on that trip before he got involved) to use a complete 
different syntax...


I would much rather use one of those Open Source assemblers (btw, which 
A86 is not!) like WASM/JWASM that stick to the Intel/Microsoft syntax 
and compatibility than to start converting each and every piece of 
assembly language source for DOS...


Ralf




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:50 PM Aitor Santamaría  wrote:
>
> I haven't been following much of what happens with the different assemblers 
> these days, but my idea is
> that the same thing as with C or Pascal happens: as much as TASM or MASM are 
> nice products, there
> are hardly open source actively maintained products that are compatible with 
> them, and hence
> NASM can be an alternative.
>
> I may be wrong but leaving aside smaller pet problems and trying to go for 
> broader products most widely
> used even by the FreeDOS community:
>
> - Assembler - there is NASM, not compatible with MASM/WASM.  I guess there is 
> still  (J)WASM as
> alternative, as I assume that MASM/TASM haven't been neither open sourced nor 
> actively maintained.

Strictly speaking, OpenWatcom is "Open Source" (OSI) but not "Free
software". Its WASM (and WASMR [real mode]) do have "partial" Ideal
mode support via "-zcm=tasm". I believe this is mostly for the
extended struct syntax (which I'm not familiar with).

> - C: the only option seems to be OWC for 16-bit and with a good amount of 
> libraries. Apparently there's
> a community maintained what is called OWC 2.0 as the original project seems 
> to be gone. If they close,
> I don't know of an alternative 16-bit active open source C compiler.

DeSmet C and IA16-ELF (GCC) both work fairly well (but not necessarily
every memory model).

* http://desmet-c.com/
* https://github.com/tkchia/build-ia16/releases

> - Pascal: I admit I haven't tried FPC/16-bit yet, and see if I can happen to 
> compile KEYB.  I am afraid it'll be hard
> because the resident part of KEYB has a lot of assembler. TP/BP are now 
> unmaintained (and not open sourced).
> Similarly, if they close, we don't have an alternative 16-bit active open 
> source Pascal compiler.

* https://wiki.freepascal.org/DOS
* https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/msdos/3.2.2/

I can send you my local copy (or show you how to get it) of the 3.2.2
cross-compiler (i8086-msdos) that works under latest HX pre-releases.
It has a built-in assembler and linker. It supports all memory models.

> What a sad panorama :)

Honestly, if DJGPP (32-bit DPMI) isn't good enough for some projects,
it's unlikely that they'll bother supporting 16-bit either. (We did
finally get builds for GCC 12. Anyone learn C++17 [default] yet??)


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Aitor Santamaría]

Hello,

I haven't been following much of what happens with the different assemblers
these days, but my idea is that the same thing as with C or Pascal happens:
as much as TASM or MASM are nice products, there are hardly open source
actively maintained products that are compatible with them, and hence NASM
can be an alternative.

I may be wrong but leaving aside smaller pet problems and trying to go for
broader products most widely used even by the FreeDOS community:

- Assembler - there is NASM, not compatible with MASM/WASM.  I guess there
is still  (J)WASM as alternative, as I assume that MASM/TASM haven't been
neither open sourced nor actively maintained.

- C: the only option seems to be OWC for 16-bit and with a good amount of
libraries. Apparently there's a community maintained what is called OWC 2.0
as the original project seems to be gone. If they close, I don't know of an
alternative 16-bit active open source C compiler.

- Pascal: I admit I haven't tried FPC/16-bit yet, and see if I can happen
to compile KEYB.  I am afraid it'll be hard because the resident part of
KEYB has a lot of assembler. TP/BP are now unmaintained (and not open
sourced). Similarly, if they close, we don't have an alternative 16-bit
active open source Pascal compiler.

What a sad panorama :)
Aitor








On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 18:42, Ralf Quint  wrote:

> On 7/2/2022 10:37 AM, Travis Siegel wrote:
> >
> > Masm, Tasm, and others all have their own syntax which confuses me
> > more than helping.
>
> Well, that is not quite correct. And it would be obvious if you did x86
> assembler in the early '80s. MASM (and basically TASM (as in Borland
> Turbo Assembler)) is using the same syntax as Intel is in their own
> assembler and in all Intel documentation. And that is the de facto
> standard for DOS x86. TASM "Ideal" mode is purely optional, with some
> good and some bad sides.  I commonly use the .MASM51 directive in all my
> assembler files, as that is the format that is most compatible with
> other compilers.
> And Turbo Debugger is hands down the best assembly language debugger, EVER.
>
> I tried to look at A86, but that is now so long ago that I don't recall
> right now what it was that I didn't like. I don't think that I spend
> more than 2 or 3 days playing with it.
>
> Similar with NASM, where for some weird reasons, they made the assembler
> case-sensitive, which I would consider utter nonsense (also among my
> griefs with C(++)). And it really bites you if you are trying to link
> assembler modules with other programming languages. It also
> (deliberately) doesn't support some assembler instructions (as per Intel
> specs) just because it doesn't fit into their parser (LODS, MOVS, ...),
> x87 registers are named differently
> And there are a lot more stupid changes that make it almost impossible
> to just compile/assemble older DOS related assembler sources without
> investing some additional time to do (error prone) conversions...
>
> Ralf
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[C. Masloch]

On at 2022-07-07 09:39 -0700, Ralf Quint wrote:
Similar with NASM, where for some weird reasons, they made the assembler 
case-sensitive, which I would consider utter nonsense (also among my 
griefs with C(++)). And it really bites you if you are trying to link 
assembler modules with other programming languages. It also 
(deliberately) doesn't support some assembler instructions (as per Intel 
specs) just because it doesn't fit into their parser (LODS, MOVS, ...),


Fair enough on all the other points, but the support for string 
instructions is actually there. It just isn't done with explicit 
operands to the instruction to indicate the operand size and segment 
override (whereas I believe the symbol offset address you can specify to 
MASM is ignored). Instead, NASM supports eg lodsb / lodsw / lodsd, as 
well as segment override and a16 or a32 as prefixes. So for example you 
could have "a32 es lodsd". This syntax used to be documented in their 
instruction set reference, as forked by me. [1]


On the ignored address, the Intel manual according to felixcloutier.com 
[2] says:


===

At the assembly-code level, two forms of this instruction are allowed: 
the “explicit-operands” form and the “no-operands” form. The 
explicit-operands form (specified with the LODS mnemonic) allows the 
source operand to be specified explicitly. Here, the source operand 
should be a symbol that indicates the size and location of the source 
value. The destination operand is then automatically selected to match 
the size of the source operand (the AL register for byte operands, AX 
for word operands, and EAX for doubleword operands). This 
explicit-operands form is provided to allow documentation; however, note 
that the documentation provided by this form can be misleading. That is, 
the source operand symbol must specify the correct type (size) of the 
operand (byte, word, or doubleword), but it does not have to specify the 
correct location. The location is always specified by the DS:(E)SI 
registers, which must be loaded correctly before the load string 
instruction is executed.


===

Regards,
ecm


[1]: https://pushbx.org/ecm/doc/insref.htm#insLODSB
[2]: https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/lods:lodsb:lodsw:lodsd:lodsq



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Ralf Quint]

On 7/2/2022 10:37 AM, Travis Siegel wrote:


Masm, Tasm, and others all have their own syntax which confuses me 
more than helping.


Well, that is not quite correct. And it would be obvious if you did x86 
assembler in the early '80s. MASM (and basically TASM (as in Borland 
Turbo Assembler)) is using the same syntax as Intel is in their own 
assembler and in all Intel documentation. And that is the de facto 
standard for DOS x86. TASM "Ideal" mode is purely optional, with some 
good and some bad sides.  I commonly use the .MASM51 directive in all my 
assembler files, as that is the format that is most compatible with 
other compilers.

And Turbo Debugger is hands down the best assembly language debugger, EVER.

I tried to look at A86, but that is now so long ago that I don't recall 
right now what it was that I didn't like. I don't think that I spend 
more than 2 or 3 days playing with it.


Similar with NASM, where for some weird reasons, they made the assembler 
case-sensitive, which I would consider utter nonsense (also among my 
griefs with C(++)). And it really bites you if you are trying to link 
assembler modules with other programming languages. It also 
(deliberately) doesn't support some assembler instructions (as per Intel 
specs) just because it doesn't fit into their parser (LODS, MOVS, ...), 
x87 registers are named differently
And there are a lot more stupid changes that make it almost impossible 
to just compile/assemble older DOS related assembler sources without 
investing some additional time to do (error prone) conversions...


Ralf




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Bret Johnson]

> What i don't like about A86 is that allows you to do stuff that is
> actually "forbidden".
>
> For instance, from what i remember, A86 allows you to do something
> like:
>
> MOV ES, B800h
>
> This is absolutely not supported by the CPU, and you need to use a
> general purpose register to move a value onto a segment register. So
> the actual A86 assembled code looks like this:
>
> PUSH AX
> MOV AX, B800h
> MOV ES, AX
> POP AX
>
> I believe that it is very important for a begginer to understand how
> the ISA works otherwise this will just lead to confusion later.

All assemblers have "quirks" in them that you just need to learn.  The A86 
thing for putting a direct value into a segment register is basically just a 
built-in Macro, and you could do the same thing with any other assembler (at 
least if it supports macros) if you wanted to also.  That particular A86 thing 
is in the documentation, so if you read that you will see it.  You will also 
see it when you're debugging.

When I use A86 (which I still do sometimes), I know about this "quirk" and 
bypass it and use one of the general purpose registers (sometimes AX and 
sometimes another register) to set a segment register to a direct value.  But 
the A86 macro is handy for a beginner -- IMHO, putting a direct value into a 
segment register SHOULD be something the CPU supports.

The "weird" one I find in NASM is that you normally need to use $-$$ (instead 
of just $) for the current memory address.

> What i like about FASM is that it is very strict so you learn to do
> things properly from the get go. Its raw and gritty so it might be a
> little more frustrating at start but you'll really learn things.

When I found I was needing to "upgrade" from A86 I looked at both FASM and NASM 
and ended up choosing NASM, in part because it wasn't as "strict" and was a 
little more similar to the A86 I was used to.  I also have a set of macros I 
use to make NASM to work a little bit more like A86 and some of the built-in 
"special features" that are nice in A86, which makes it easier to port the code 
over to NASM.  I still need to make quite a few changes to the code, but not as 
many changes as I would need to make if I didn't have the macros.

It's really all personal preference.  But, when you start introducing macros 
and libraries (especially ones that others write) then "strictness" kind of 
goes out the window, anyway.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 12:59 PM Carlos Teixeira  wrote:
>
> What i don't like about A86 is that allows you to do stuff that is actually 
> "forbidden".

I believe A86 intends to be "mostly" compatible with old MASM v5, but
it does have some shortcuts and enhancements.

> For instance, from what i remember, A86 allows you to do something like:
>
> MOV ES, B800h
>
> This is absolutely not supported by the CPU, and you need to use a general 
> purpose register to move a value
> onto a segment register. So the actual A86 assembled code looks like this:
>
> PUSH AX
> MOV AX, B800h
> MOV ES, AX
> POP AX

Of course, just do this (requires 186):

PUSH 0B800h
POP ES

By default, I think A86 targets whatever your host cpu supports, but
you can lower it (e.g. +P0 cmdline for 8086) or let it "emulate" (186
vs. 8086 output via +P64 from same source).

The manual is very clear on matters like this.

But most code isn't written for (or compatible) with A86, sadly. There
used to be AFIX for various PC Magazine sources, but those aren't
available anymore. You can probably still search for ASNIP40[abc].ZIP
and 80xxx_9[56].zip snippets, but A86 support is rare. (Honestly, it
bugs me how unportable code is between assemblers.)

> I believe that it is very important for a begginer to understand how the ISA 
> works otherwise this will just lead to confusion later.

Assuming they care about segmentation (CS, DS, ES, SS) and 8086 vs.
186 (push immediate) at all.

> What i like about FASM is that it is very strict so you learn to do things 
> properly from the get go.
> Its raw and gritty so it might be a little more frustrating at start but 
> you'll really learn things.

FASM from the beginning was "flat", i.e. 386 host, and it doesn't
support 16-bit OMF/OBJ output at all. A86 is in a different field
entirely, but both are good for what they're meant for. (FASM
assembles itself and has a nice DOS IDE. You can link COFF output with
DJGPP.)

For AMD64 / x64, there's modern books (for Linux, OS X, Windows) and
supporting tools like Ray Seyfarth's (N.B. PDF version):

* http://rayseyfarth.com/asm/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Carlos Teixeira]

What i don't like about A86 is that allows you to do stuff that is actually
"forbidden".

For instance, from what i remember, A86 allows you to do something like:

MOV ES, B800h


This is absolutely not supported by the CPU, and you need to use a general
purpose register to move a value onto a segment register. So the actual A86
assembled code looks like this:

PUSH AX
MOV AX, B800h
MOV ES, AX
POP AX

I believe that it is very important for a begginer to understand how the
ISA works otherwise this will just lead to confusion later.

What i like about FASM is that it is very strict so you learn to do things
properly from the get go. Its raw and gritty so it might be a little more
frustrating at start but you'll really learn things.

A terça, 5/07/2022, 17:51, Anton Shepelev  escreveu:

> Santiago Almenara:
>
> > What book or webpage do you recommend to learn some DOS
> > assembler?
>
> At https://freeshell.de/~antonius/file_host/MSDOSASM.zip
>
> I have some books that you may find of use:
>
>   1.  Advanced MS-DOS Programming, by Ray Duncan
>
>   2.  Programmer's Technical Reference for MSDOS and the IBM
>   PC by Dave Williams,
>
>   3.  The Art of Assembly Language Programming, by James F.
>   Peters
>
>   4.  Peter Norton's Assembly Language Book for the IBM PC
>
> Also I highly recommend Michael Abrash's Black Book of VGA
> programming, which is available in many versions from
> different sources, e.g.:
>
>https://archive.org/details/gpbb20/gpbb0/
>
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Anton Shepelev]

Santiago Almenara:

> What book or webpage do you recommend to learn some DOS
> assembler?

At https://freeshell.de/~antonius/file_host/MSDOSASM.zip

I have some books that you may find of use:

  1.  Advanced MS-DOS Programming, by Ray Duncan

  2.  Programmer's Technical Reference for MSDOS and the IBM
  PC by Dave Williams,

  3.  The Art of Assembly Language Programming, by James F.
  Peters

  4.  Peter Norton's Assembly Language Book for the IBM PC

Also I highly recommend Michael Abrash's Black Book of VGA
programming, which is available in many versions from
different sources, e.g.:

   https://archive.org/details/gpbb20/gpbb0/



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 9:39 AM Bret Johnson  wrote:
>
> > Interestingly enough, I also bought a86/D86, and have found it to be
> > the best assembler/disassembler I've ever found for dos.  I ran
> > across it after (mostly) trying to use debug for things, so it was a
> > welcome relief.
>
> I still like A86/A386 also, but like I said my programs are getting so 
> complicated these days that they no longer work
> because of the limited memory.  Specifically, I have so many symbols 
> (structure elements and equates and labels)
> that the symbol table overflows when using A86/A386.  That's why I've had to 
> switch to something more capable
> (specifically, NASM).

I think it can only use about 400k conventional RAM. That should be
enough! You need better modularity.  ;-)
Nah, I get it, it's not perfect (I own it), but it's good for what it does.

> The problem I have with NASM, and most other assemblers, is that they don't 
> come with a useful debugger.
>
> To me, the real "gems" of A86/A386 are the D86/D386 debuggers.  I still use 
> them all the time when I'm debugging
> the programs I'm writing.  There are two things I really like about D86/D386. 
>  One is that you can put the screen in
> a 50-line mode and have the debugger "window" on the top half of the screen 
> and watch the program output on the
> bottom half of the screen.  That's a very nice setup.

I tend to just wimp out most times and use the "printf" method (i.e.
simple console output of certain values).

> The other thing is that if you create a .SYM (Symbol) file in the D86/D386 
> format you can refer to the symbol names
> instead of memory addresses as you are debugging, another VERY useful 
> feature.  Unfortunately, the .SYM file
> format is proprietary and can only be generated by an A86 or A386 assembler.  
> But I have a method automated where
> I can take the .MAP output file generated by NASM and create the .SYM file (I 
> only convert the subroutine labels
> and not the equates or structure elements) so I can use the symbolic 
> capabilities of the D386 debugger with
> NASM-generated programs.  This makes debugging much easier.

The obvious alternative here is OpenWatcom's WASM "-d3" and WD debugger.

You can also use David Lindauer's GRDB (with his MKSYM or VALX linker)
for symbolic debugging.

Doesn't NASM have rudimentary support for Borland's Turbo Debugger?
(The Win32 version used to be freeware, but I never used it.)

Exuberant Ctags and compatible editor (e.g. VILE) is also very helpful
for "asm" projects.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Bret Johnson]

> Interestingly enough, I also bought a86/D86, and have found it to be
> the best assembler/disassembler I've ever found for dos.  I ran
> across it after (mostly) trying to use debug for things, so it was a
> welcome relief.

I still like A86/A386 also, but like I said my programs are getting so 
complicated these days that they no longer work because of the limited memory.  
Specifically, I have so many symbols (structure elements and equates and 
labels) that the symbol table overflows when using A86/A386.  That's why I've 
had to switch to something more capable (specifically, NASM).  The problem I 
have with NASM, and most other assemblers, is that they don't come with a 
useful debugger.

To me, the real "gems" of A86/A386 are the D86/D386 debuggers.  I still use 
them all the time when I'm debugging the programs I'm writing.  There are two 
things I really like about D86/D386.  One is that you can put the screen in a 
50-line mode and have the debugger "window" on the top half of the screen and 
watch the program output on the bottom half of the screen.  That's a very nice 
setup.

The other thing is that if you create a .SYM (Symbol) file in the D86/D386 
format you can refer to the symbol names instead of memory addresses as you are 
debugging, another VERY useful feature.  Unfortunately, the .SYM file format is 
proprietary and can only be generated by an A86 or A386 assembler.  But I have 
a method automated where I can take the .MAP output file generated by NASM and 
create the .SYM file (I only convert the subroutine labels and not the equates 
or structure elements) so I can use the symbolic capabilities of the D386 
debugger with NASM-generated programs.  This makes debugging much easier.

I've also experimented a little bit with 386SWAT, but haven't used it enough to 
really get comfortable with it.  I know you can also provide symbols to 386SWAT 
which definitely helps.  But my main debugger is D386.

I also sometimes use ECM's lDebug, but that is mostly when I'm trying to figure 
out what someones else's program is doing and don't have the source code or 
some other way to look at the symbols/names to help try and figure out what's 
going on.  lDebug is much better/easier than D86/D386 for certain kinds of 
debugging/research. 


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Fonts

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 12:32 PM Daniel  wrote:
>
> Is anyone familiar with how DOS fonts work?
>
> There are some .com files that will change the original font with another and 
> ya can create your own.  I created a TI-99/4aA font to use.
>
> So how does it work?  Is the hardware font cached and the cache is changed?  
> Some programs will revert back to the original font when exiting back to DOS.
>
> Is there a location where one can read/write the font information?

Take a look here (and see Terminus as a good example):

* https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/system/fonts/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM Resources

[Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-user]

That's a great suggestion! Way back in the day, before I had internet, my local 
library was an excellent resource to begin learning. :)

Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.

--- Original Message ---
On Saturday, July 2nd, 2022 at 7:01 PM, Daniel  wrote:

> If ya have a library, ya can try lookin there. Usin our library here I found 
> some good books to go through. Advanced MSDOS Programming, From BASIC to 
> 8086/8088 Assembly Language. There are other books I am waitin on. I also 
> have other books I collected over the years. I hope this is a good suggestion.
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 14:02  
> wrote:
>
>> Send Freedos-user mailing list submissions to
>> freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> freedos-user-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> freedos-user-ow...@lists.sourceforge.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Freedos-user digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: DOS ASM resources (Ben Collver)
>> 2. Re: DOS ASM resources (Travis Siegel)
>> 3. Re: DOS ASM resources (Santiago Almenara)
>>
>> --------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2022 13:12:03 +
>> From: Ben Collver 
>> To: "freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net"
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources
>> Message-ID:
>> 
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> I made a mistake pasting a URL into my last post.
>>
>> OLD: http://ref.x86asm.net/coder32.htmlhttp://www.eji.com/a86/
>> NEW: http://ref.x86asm.net/coder32.html
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2022 13:37:01 -0400
>> From: Travis Siegel 
>> To: "Discussion and general questions about FreeDOS."
>> , Bret Johnson 
>> Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources
>> Message-ID: 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>> Interestingly enough, I also bought a86/D86, and have found it to be the
>> best assembler/disassembler I've ever found for dos.? I ran across it
>> after (mostly) trying to use debug for things, so it was a welcome
>> relief.? I still use it when working on dos things, which admittedly
>> isn't very often these days, but at least it still works, and still does
>> what's needed.
>>
>> Of course, take this with a grain of salt, since I'm an intermediate asm
>> programmer (at best), and it takes me many hours to get anything
>> complicated untangled when looking at asm code, which is why I don't use
>> it much, but there's sometimes when nothing else can do the job as well,
>> so 
>>
>> Masm, Tasm, and others all have their own syntax which confuses me more
>> than helping.? I find debug and A86 fairly straightforward, which is why
>> I still like those methods when working with asm code.
>>
>> On 7/1/2022 11:58 AM, Bret Johnson wrote:
>>> Santiago:
>>>
>>> I agree pretty much with ECM. The best way to learn is to look at the code 
>>> someone else has written and try to understand it. Unfortunately, most ASM 
>>> coders aren't very good at comments/documentation, and you really need the 
>>> comments to help you figure things out. Looking at uncommented code doesn't 
>>> seem to help me very much -- I need to try and figure out how the coder was 
>>> thinking, not just the result of the thinking.
>>>
>>> I put LOTS of comments in my code -- I'm sure at least some people think 
>>> too many. Almost every line of the source has a comment, and each 
>>> "subroutine" has a comment header similar to what ECM has (but my "style" 
>>> is different than ECM's). The comment header includes details about what 
>>> the subroutine does, its inputs and outputs, and what it may change. The 
>>> header MAY also include the "context" of when and where the subroutine 
>>> should get used, and why the subroutine even exists at all (especially if 
>>> it is there to address some "special" situation). For example, most of my 
>>> programs are TSR's and in the most recent versions I'm working on the 
>>> programs can use different kinds of m

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Santiago Almenara]

Thank you for the answers. I've been following all the links you've sent

I'll also follow the advice and try to understand some project like DOSLFN.
(source code is only 220k)

Santiago


El jue, 30 jun 2022 a la(s) 13:19, C. Masloch (pus...@ulukai.org) escribió:

> On at 2022-06-30 10:00 -0500, Santiago Almenara wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > What book or webpage do you recommend to learn some DOS assembler?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Santiago
>
> I learned primarily using these methods:
>
> 1. Read existing code and try to understand it. Even better, start with
> higher-level commentary about code if you can find any. Some
> applications' manuals are good for this, eg DOSLFN.
>
> 2. Have an english-language instruction set reference handy. I used the
> one included with older NASM versions, which I subsequently forked when
> it was dropped from NASM. [1]
>
> 3. Likewise, refer to the Interrupt List for reference as to what a
> particular interrupt service does. Apart from some modern extensions it
> is fairly complete. It can be found in plain-text files (split across a
> lot of them, you can concatenate them to receive a single file) on Ralf
> Brown's pages [2] and can be accessed online, page per page, hosted by
> several different websites such as fd.lod.bz [3].
>
> 4. Try out things in a debugger if unsure, such as when unclear about
> what a particular instruction does, or to trace an existing program and
> try to improve your understanding of its workings. My main project is
> lDebug (with a small "L"), a debugger with a command line interface
> that's based on FreeDOS Debug. [4]
>
> 5. You can also read some of the books that have been written about DOS.
> At home I have the following print books: "FreeDOS Kernel", "DOS
> Internals", "Undocumented DOS (Second Edition)" (UDOS), "Dissecting
> DOS", "Extending DOS", "Advanced MS-DOS Programming", "Writing MS-DOS
> Device Drivers", and a german "DR DOS 6.0" manual. UDOS and the DR DOS
> manual are probably the best among these.
>
> Finally, I wrote a document called Assembly Comments Explained: Guide
> for Advanced Learning and Style [5]. It is intended to clarify
> conventions in my assembly language sources in particular.
>
> Regards,
> ecm
>
>
> [1]: https://pushbx.org/ecm/doc/insref.htm
> [2]: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ralf/files.html
> [3]: https://fd.lod.bz/rbil/index.html
> [4]: https://pushbx.org/ecm/web/#projects-ldebug
> [5]: https://pushbx.org/ecm/doc/acegals.htm
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Travis Siegel]

Interestingly enough, I also bought a86/D86, and have found it to be the 
best assembler/disassembler I've ever found for dos.  I ran across it 
after (mostly) trying to use debug for things, so it was a welcome 
relief.  I still use it when working on dos things, which admittedly 
isn't very often these days, but at least it still works, and still does 
what's needed.


Of course, take this with a grain of salt, since I'm an intermediate asm 
programmer (at best), and it takes me many hours to get anything 
complicated untangled when looking at asm code, which is why I don't use 
it much, but there's sometimes when nothing else can do the job as well, 
so 


Masm, Tasm, and others all have their own syntax which confuses me more 
than helping.  I find debug and A86 fairly straightforward, which is why 
I still like those methods when working with asm code.



On 7/1/2022 11:58 AM, Bret Johnson wrote:

Santiago:

I agree pretty much with ECM.  The best way to learn is to look at the code 
someone else has written and try to understand it.  Unfortunately, most ASM 
coders aren't very good at comments/documentation, and you really need the 
comments to help you figure things out.  Looking at uncommented code doesn't 
seem to help me very much -- I need to try and figure out how the coder was 
thinking, not just the result of the thinking.

I put LOTS of comments in my code -- I'm sure at least some people think too many.  Almost every line of the source has 
a comment, and each "subroutine" has a comment header similar to what ECM has (but my "style" is 
different than ECM's).  The comment header includes details about what the subroutine does, its inputs and outputs, and 
what it may change.  The header MAY also include the "context" of when and where the subroutine should get 
used, and why the subroutine even exists at all (especially if it is there to address some "special" 
situation).  For example, most of my programs are TSR's and in the most recent versions I'm working on the programs can 
use different kinds of memory: conventional, upper, Expanded (EMS), and/or Extended (XMS, which I access through a DOS 
Protected Mode Services or DPMS server).  I have comments to try and explain why I do something that requires a special 
consideration for one of the different types of memory.  An example of this would be that you NEVER want a stack to use 
Expanded memory, so sections of the code related to the stack need to take that into account and should make some 
comment about it.

When I first started (a LONG time ago), modern assemblers like NASM & FASM didn't exist, 
and I didn't like MASM (though it was and still is kind of "the standard" I find it 
confusing), so I ended up buying A86/A386 from Eric Isaacson.  Unfortunately, Eric hasn't 
updated those in a long time and it's not possible to do large projects with them because 
they don't take advantage of extended or expanded memory.  I've since switched to NASM, but I 
think FASM is also pretty good, and they're both free (unlike A86/A386).

I've got a couple of books, but really the only "fixed" resource I use is Ralf 
Brown's Interrupt List (RBIL).  I've found looking at other people's actual production 
code is the best way to learn things.

I also think the best way to get started is to actually write a small but 
useful program from scratch -- a program that you will actually use when you 
get done.  Don't make it try to do too much -- just something relatively 
simple.  The very first program I wrote was a simple version of JOYKEYS, a 
program that allows you to use a Joystick with almost any DOS program.  The 
first version was pretty basic, and it's changed a lot over the decades 
compared to how it started.  There are lots of things you need to understand 
(memory, I/O, Interrupts, BIOS, DOS, etc.) to even write a simple program.  The 
ASM part of it, while pretty complicated, is not the hard part.  The hard part 
is figuring out WHY you do (or don't do) certain things.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Ben Collver]

I made a mistake pasting a URL into my last post.

OLD: http://ref.x86asm.net/coder32.htmlhttp://www.eji.com/a86/
NEW: http://ref.x86asm.net/coder32.html

___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Frantisek Rysanek]

...somehow those two URL's got fused together:
http://ref.x86asm.net/coder32.html
http://www.eji.com/a86/

Frank

On 2 Jul 2022 at 15:08, Bryan Kilgallin wrote:

> Ben:
> 
> > http://ref.x86asm.net/coder32.htmlhttp://www.eji.com/a86/
> 
> {Not Found
> 
> The requested URL was not found on this server.}
> -- 
> members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/
> 
> 
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Bryan Kilgallin]

Ben:


http://ref.x86asm.net/coder32.htmlhttp://www.eji.com/a86/


{Not Found

The requested URL was not found on this server.}
--
members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Bret Johnson]

Santiago:

I agree pretty much with ECM.  The best way to learn is to look at the code 
someone else has written and try to understand it.  Unfortunately, most ASM 
coders aren't very good at comments/documentation, and you really need the 
comments to help you figure things out.  Looking at uncommented code doesn't 
seem to help me very much -- I need to try and figure out how the coder was 
thinking, not just the result of the thinking.

I put LOTS of comments in my code -- I'm sure at least some people think too 
many.  Almost every line of the source has a comment, and each "subroutine" has 
a comment header similar to what ECM has (but my "style" is different than 
ECM's).  The comment header includes details about what the subroutine does, 
its inputs and outputs, and what it may change.  The header MAY also include 
the "context" of when and where the subroutine should get used, and why the 
subroutine even exists at all (especially if it is there to address some 
"special" situation).  For example, most of my programs are TSR's and in the 
most recent versions I'm working on the programs can use different kinds of 
memory: conventional, upper, Expanded (EMS), and/or Extended (XMS, which I 
access through a DOS Protected Mode Services or DPMS server).  I have comments 
to try and explain why I do something that requires a special consideration for 
one of the different types of memory.  An example of this would be that you 
NEVER want a stack to use Expanded memory, so sections of the code related to 
the stack need to take that into account and should make some comment about it.

When I first started (a LONG time ago), modern assemblers like NASM & FASM 
didn't exist, and I didn't like MASM (though it was and still is kind of "the 
standard" I find it confusing), so I ended up buying A86/A386 from Eric 
Isaacson.  Unfortunately, Eric hasn't updated those in a long time and it's not 
possible to do large projects with them because they don't take advantage of 
extended or expanded memory.  I've since switched to NASM, but I think FASM is 
also pretty good, and they're both free (unlike A86/A386).

I've got a couple of books, but really the only "fixed" resource I use is Ralf 
Brown's Interrupt List (RBIL).  I've found looking at other people's actual 
production code is the best way to learn things.

I also think the best way to get started is to actually write a small but 
useful program from scratch -- a program that you will actually use when you 
get done.  Don't make it try to do too much -- just something relatively 
simple.  The very first program I wrote was a simple version of JOYKEYS, a 
program that allows you to use a Joystick with almost any DOS program.  The 
first version was pretty basic, and it's changed a lot over the decades 
compared to how it started.  There are lots of things you need to understand 
(memory, I/O, Interrupts, BIOS, DOS, etc.) to even write a simple program.  The 
ASM part of it, while pretty complicated, is not the hard part.  The hard part 
is figuring out WHY you do (or don't do) certain things.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Louis Santillan]

PCGPE and the VLA Tutorials.
http://bespin.org/~qz/pc-gpe/

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:19 AM C. Masloch  wrote:

> On at 2022-06-30 10:00 -0500, Santiago Almenara wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > What book or webpage do you recommend to learn some DOS assembler?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Santiago
>
> I learned primarily using these methods:
>
> 1. Read existing code and try to understand it. Even better, start with
> higher-level commentary about code if you can find any. Some
> applications' manuals are good for this, eg DOSLFN.
>
> 2. Have an english-language instruction set reference handy. I used the
> one included with older NASM versions, which I subsequently forked when
> it was dropped from NASM. [1]
>
> 3. Likewise, refer to the Interrupt List for reference as to what a
> particular interrupt service does. Apart from some modern extensions it
> is fairly complete. It can be found in plain-text files (split across a
> lot of them, you can concatenate them to receive a single file) on Ralf
> Brown's pages [2] and can be accessed online, page per page, hosted by
> several different websites such as fd.lod.bz [3].
>
> 4. Try out things in a debugger if unsure, such as when unclear about
> what a particular instruction does, or to trace an existing program and
> try to improve your understanding of its workings. My main project is
> lDebug (with a small "L"), a debugger with a command line interface
> that's based on FreeDOS Debug. [4]
>
> 5. You can also read some of the books that have been written about DOS.
> At home I have the following print books: "FreeDOS Kernel", "DOS
> Internals", "Undocumented DOS (Second Edition)" (UDOS), "Dissecting
> DOS", "Extending DOS", "Advanced MS-DOS Programming", "Writing MS-DOS
> Device Drivers", and a german "DR DOS 6.0" manual. UDOS and the DR DOS
> manual are probably the best among these.
>
> Finally, I wrote a document called Assembly Comments Explained: Guide
> for Advanced Learning and Style [5]. It is intended to clarify
> conventions in my assembly language sources in particular.
>
> Regards,
> ecm
>
>
> [1]: https://pushbx.org/ecm/doc/insref.htm
> [2]: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ralf/files.html
> [3]: https://fd.lod.bz/rbil/index.html
> [4]: https://pushbx.org/ecm/web/#projects-ldebug
> [5]: https://pushbx.org/ecm/doc/acegals.htm
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[Ben Collver]

I learned DOS asm from the following book, recommended by a friend.
Using Assembly Language by Allen Wyatt, published by Que

At that time i preferred to use the a86 assembler.
http://www.eji.com/a86/

Below is a link to PC Assembly Language by Paul Carter:
https://pacman128.github.io/static/pcasm-book.pdf

Below are some other references:

DEBUG tutorial
gopher://tilde.pink/1/~bencollver/files/dos/devel/debug/

FreeDOS DEBUG tutorial
C:\FREEDOS\DOC\DEBUG\DEBUG.TXT

Writing 16-bit DOS code in NASM
https://www.nasm.us/doc/nasmdoc8.html

SeaBIOS developer references
https://www.seabios.org/Developer_links

X86 instruction set references
https://c9x.me/x86/
http://ref.x86asm.net/coder32.htmlhttp://www.eji.com/a86/
http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/x86-jumps.html
http://www.c-jump.com/CIS77/CPU/x86/lecture.html

___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS ASM resources

[C. Masloch]

On at 2022-06-30 10:00 -0500, Santiago Almenara wrote:

Hello!

What book or webpage do you recommend to learn some DOS assembler?

Thanks in advance

Santiago


I learned primarily using these methods:

1. Read existing code and try to understand it. Even better, start with 
higher-level commentary about code if you can find any. Some 
applications' manuals are good for this, eg DOSLFN.


2. Have an english-language instruction set reference handy. I used the 
one included with older NASM versions, which I subsequently forked when 
it was dropped from NASM. [1]


3. Likewise, refer to the Interrupt List for reference as to what a 
particular interrupt service does. Apart from some modern extensions it 
is fairly complete. It can be found in plain-text files (split across a 
lot of them, you can concatenate them to receive a single file) on Ralf 
Brown's pages [2] and can be accessed online, page per page, hosted by 
several different websites such as fd.lod.bz [3].


4. Try out things in a debugger if unsure, such as when unclear about 
what a particular instruction does, or to trace an existing program and 
try to improve your understanding of its workings. My main project is 
lDebug (with a small "L"), a debugger with a command line interface 
that's based on FreeDOS Debug. [4]


5. You can also read some of the books that have been written about DOS. 
At home I have the following print books: "FreeDOS Kernel", "DOS 
Internals", "Undocumented DOS (Second Edition)" (UDOS), "Dissecting 
DOS", "Extending DOS", "Advanced MS-DOS Programming", "Writing MS-DOS 
Device Drivers", and a german "DR DOS 6.0" manual. UDOS and the DR DOS 
manual are probably the best among these.


Finally, I wrote a document called Assembly Comments Explained: Guide 
for Advanced Learning and Style [5]. It is intended to clarify 
conventions in my assembly language sources in particular.


Regards,
ecm


[1]: https://pushbx.org/ecm/doc/insref.htm
[2]: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ralf/files.html
[3]: https://fd.lod.bz/rbil/index.html
[4]: https://pushbx.org/ecm/web/#projects-ldebug
[5]: https://pushbx.org/ecm/doc/acegals.htm


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Fonts

[Jerome Shidel]

Like Aitor mentioned there are some basic tools for it. (Like GNU and Display)

Also, there are some others.

V8PowerTools VFONT.COM can load the normal raster fonts (like GNU load font) 
temporarily. When the video mode is reset (or changed) the fonts will revert 
back to their previous state.

ImgEdit can edit standard raster fonts and always uses that file format for 
8x?? size fonts. Fonts wider than 8 bits use a different format and are for the 
“Danger Engine” and graphics modes only.

PGME uses a different font file format and includes its own editor (EFNTDSGN). 
However, it also comes with utilities to convert from its format to/from raster 
format. It also includes tools to temporarily load them. It even includes a 
utility that can turn the font into a stand alone executable TSR that keeps the 
font persistent for mode resets and changes.

There are other tools as well.

:-)

Jerome





___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Fonts

[Aitor Santamaría]

Hello,

The graphic card maintains information of how character glyphs are made out
of their character code. Basically it is limited to being able to represent
just 256 characters together at a time (there is a trick to double this to
512, but doesn't make a difference here).

Each of such configuration set is called a codepage, and the different
codepages usually maintain the first 128 characters the same (ASCII),
whereas the other 128 characters are used to represent different characters
that may vary between countries.
Ideally, one could define different codepages that do not change which
character is represented, but the way the character is printed to screen.
But it is usually not the case: codepages usually have the same
"appearance" but different locale characters (at least in the characters
129-255).

Also notice that after screen resolution changes usually reset the original
codepage the BIOS came with (usually CP437, US-English), so your CP or font
is wipped out. This means that you'd need some resident code that would
restore your codepage after each time that resolution is changed.

This "screen" stuff is, in the end, part of the Console management. Thus,
it should be the responsibility of DOS' CON (console) devide. But as the
codepage change is very rarely executed (I assume) inside the US, this
particular resident code is not shipped with kernel's CON device, but you
have to enlarge your CON and load it yourself as you boot your PC.

SO, what are your options in FreeDOS? There are two options that I do know
of:
* DISPLAY is the standard DOS way of doing this (in MS-DOS, it is
DISPLAY.SYS, in FreeDOS it is DISPLAY.COM). You can try and create a CPI
file with your "font", and thus use standard (MODE CON...) mechanism to
load this font within DISPLAY. DISPLAY will guarantee that the font remains
after a change of resolution. In addition, this would be incompatible with
any DOS user that wants to actually change a codepage (and set, for
example, the standard western european with Euro CP858), unless you create
fonts for each of the codepages.
* There is GNU LOADFONT: you can create a font for GNU Loadfont, and load
it within a single executable. However, I am not sure that Loadfont will
help you keep your codepage on a resolution change (I believe it does not).
Also I ignore how loadfont deals with different codepages (I seem to
remember that some fonts have different configurations for different
codepages).

Aitor



On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 19:37, Ralf Quint  wrote:

> On 6/15/2022 10:30 AM, Daniel wrote:
> > Is anyone familiar with how DOS fonts work?
> >
> > There are some .com files that will change the original font with
> > another and ya can create your own.  I created a TI-99/4aA font to use.
> >
> > So how does it work?  Is the hardware font cached and the cache is
> > changed?  Some programs will revert back to the original font when
> > exiting back to DOS.
> >
> > Is there a location where one can read/write the font information?
>
> There is no such thing as a "DOS Font". Seriously!
>
> Any font functionality is totally dependent on the graphics card being
> used. Any attempts to (kind of) standardize the use of fonts (incl.
> modification) might be found in the description of INT 10h functions
> (BIOS Video interrupt) but pretty much all of those, beside some VERY
> BASIC stuff common on VGA adapters) is totally manufacturer dependent...
>
>
> Ralf
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Fonts

[Ralf Quint]

On 6/15/2022 10:30 AM, Daniel wrote:

Is anyone familiar with how DOS fonts work?

There are some .com files that will change the original font with 
another and ya can create your own.  I created a TI-99/4aA font to use.


So how does it work?  Is the hardware font cached and the cache is 
changed?  Some programs will revert back to the original font when 
exiting back to DOS.


Is there a location where one can read/write the font information?


There is no such thing as a "DOS Font". Seriously!

Any font functionality is totally dependent on the graphics card being 
used. Any attempts to (kind of) standardize the use of fonts (incl. 
modification) might be found in the description of INT 10h functions 
(BIOS Video interrupt) but pretty much all of those, beside some VERY 
BASIC stuff common on VGA adapters) is totally manufacturer dependent...



Ralf




___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Related source code

[Ralf Quint]

On 5/20/2021 11:34 AM, Tomas By wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2021 20:17:55 +0200, Ralf Quint wrote:

Also vetusware.com, winworldpc.com

None of those do actually have any DOS "SOURCE CODE"...


Hmm, ok, but was that really what OP meant?
"DOS related source code" is rather unambiguous IMHO, referring to the 
source code of software running on DOS...


Also, to be pedantic, I found e.g. the Microsoft C compiler on
Vetusware, and it has quite a bit of example code.


This suggestion is rather hilarious...

Ralf



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Related source code

[Eric Auer]

> Also, to be pedantic, I found e.g. the Microsoft C compiler
> on Vetusware, and it has quite a bit of example code.

Note that vetusware is about abandonware, so you will also
find things with questionable licenses there. Which is of
course not recommended in FreeDOS context.

Eric



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Related source code

[Tomas By]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 20:17:55 +0200, Ralf Quint wrote:
> > Also vetusware.com, winworldpc.com
> 
> None of those do actually have any DOS "SOURCE CODE"...


Hmm, ok, but was that really what OP meant?

Also, to be pedantic, I found e.g. the Microsoft C compiler on
Vetusware, and it has quite a bit of example code.

/Tomas


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Related source code

[Ralf Quint]

On 5/20/2021 10:23 AM, Tomas By wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2021 19:16:11 +0200, Eric Auer wrote:

Are there any good lists of DOS software available
(or that used to be available)?

I guess you mean commercial software, not just this?
Or at least shareware, freeware etc.? All old stuff? [...]


Also vetusware.com, winworldpc.com


None of those do actually have any DOS "SOURCE CODE"...

Ralf



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Related source code

[Tomas By]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 19:16:11 +0200, Eric Auer wrote:
> > Are there any good lists of DOS software available
> > (or that used to be available)?
> 
> I guess you mean commercial software, not just this?
> Or at least shareware, freeware etc.? All old stuff? [...]


Also vetusware.com, winworldpc.com

/Tomas


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS Related source code

[Eric Auer]

Hi Martin,

> Are there any good lists of DOS software available
> (or that used to be available)?

I guess you mean commercial software, not just this?
Or at least shareware, freeware etc.? All old stuff?

https://gitlab.com/FDOS

Or the up to 20 GB (?) here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/

in particular

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/

and

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/ftp.sunet.se/pub/simtelnet/gnu/gnuish/

or all the DOS ports here:

http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/ (do use the ZIP picker!)

Hmm Chrome and Firefox no longer support FTP? What the...?

http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/dl/ofc/dlfiles.cgi/current/v2gnu/

Mirror: http://djgpp.mirror.garr.it/current/v2gnu/

http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/dl/ofc/dlfiles.cgi/current/v2apps/

http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/dl/ofc/dlfiles.cgi/current/v2tk/

The FreeDOS website also has a number of links:

*entry point* http://freedos.org/links/ *check this out*

Many of those link to LONG lists of DOS things themselves:

Dosgames.com hosts almost 1500 games and you can even play
them inside the browser in an in-browser PC emulator :-)

Dosgamesarchive.com has over 1000 games as well.

RGB Classicdosgames.com is "small" with 500 games, but they
mention GOG which originally also had commercial DOS games:
At the moment, they only have Linux, Windows and OS X games?

On archive.org you can find 7000 pieces of old DOS software,
which seems to include a lot of abandonware? They also have
that "play in a dosbox in your browser". For example this:

https://archive.org/details/msdos_Bananoid_1989

There are way more than 100 CD-ROM full of DOS software on

http://www.retroarchive.org/cdrom/index.html

And you know that a lot of DOS stuff can fit on a single CD:

http://annex.retroarchive.org/cdrom/cotc-1/index.html

for example has more than 1000 ARJ packages with all sorts
of stuff. Quality is VERY mixed, but I guess you understand
that writing Wikipedia articles about every DOS package out
there would be impossible ;-)

Maybe a fun example: Speedkit 4.52 including HYPERDISK cache:

http://annex.retroarchive.org/cdrom/cotc-1/UTILITY/index.html

Note that Linux does not normally come with UNARJ, but our
Arachne browser package has it.

You probably also remember VGACOPY diskcopy with MOD music:

http://annex.retroarchive.org/cdrom/cotc-1/DISK/index.html

> I want to see if we can create a list with as much DOS software as possible
> and put that on the FreeDOS wiki.>
> Yes, it is going to be a big list, so I'm also asking for your help.
> 
> A starting point may be wikipedia, but they lack a lot of DOS software of
> course.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:DOS_software

Those are only 160 pages ;-) On the other hand, 2300 (!)
DOS games already have Wikipedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:DOS_games

So... There might be chances to describe more DOS things, but
you can normally assume that almost everything has been done
before - the problem would be to bundle it. If you know the
name of the software, you will probably find it in some old
archives of shareware, freeware, abandonware and so on. But
making a list of everything which exists? Sounds adventurous.

Regards, Eric



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Frantisek Rysanek]

On 29 Apr 2021 at 22:32, Adam Nielsen via Freedos-user wrote:

> > Thanks for the NUC warning, but Win98 actually will switch from BIOS
> > to built-in drivers which are likely not able to cope with new
> > chips.
> 
> That's what I thought too, but I figured it would at least run in
> compatibility mode and IIRC the BIOS had options to run the SATA
> interface in IDE-compatibility mode so I figured my chances were good
> but alas no.
> 
Either generic IDE mode can be enabled in the HW, or you have a 
chance if Win98 are willing to work via the "compatibility mode" 
(BIOS services) - that has theoretical chance of working even on 
fairly new AHCI controllers, provided that the "firmware" still has 
BIOS services (int 13h if memory serves). I've found this post about 
AHCI vs. Win98:
https://msfn.org/board/topic/173885-ahci-and-windows-9x/

Not that I've ever tried this on modern hardware :-)  Also, you'll 
have a hard time finding modern PC hardware with less than approx. 
1GB of RAM, which is another principal "no go" for Windows98...

Overall, to run Win98 on modern PC hardware, I'd strongly recommend 
to install some modern OS first (even Debian Linux) and install Win98 
in a virtual PC / emulator. No problem with RAM size, HDD controller, 
VGA hardware compatibility, legacy BIOS support, generally drivers 
for hardware. The same goes for Windows XP on modern hardware, and 
the Windows 7 will soon follow (or have followed already, around Kaby 
Lake if not earlier. No driver for USB 3.1+ XHCI.)

> I've only bought Intel boards for quite a few years now 
>
As much as I am a diehard fanboy of Intel PC CPU's and chipsets in 
the industrial hardware that we sell, I am not a fanboy of 
Intel-branded *motherboards*.

I've had one bad experience, about a decade ago, on an LGA775 board 
at the time, which had an odd glitch that the board sometimes (often) 
would not be able to start from ACPI S5, after it has been booted 
into Windows XP and shut down by software a couple times. You had to 
pull the cord out of the wall socket, or flip the rocker switch on 
the PSU. Linux did not have this problem. And it was a couple dozen 
boards sold, and no problem ever acknowledged from Intel...
Other than that, the Intel BIOS looks like something "smug and 
simple" = allowing Intel to be first to the market, with their shiny 
new silicon on their own motherboards, like a reference 
implementation... but somehow as if the motherboards don't get much 
love from their maker after launch.

So Intel CPU's and chipsets definitely yes, but on other vendors' 
motherboards. With respect to no-nonsense legacy BIOS compatibility 
and no-frills reliable hardware, I'd like to praise Advantech in the 
"industrial" segment and specifically Gigabyte in the office-grade PC 
segment. Preferably if you purchase models that are not "hot off the 
press", i.e. the BIOS is not an initial shipping version.

> I do like the NUC though and I found that some of their older models
> list Win98 as supported so I am on the lookout for those models, but
> even second-hand ones go for surprisingly high prices where I am, and
> people seem happy with them as they don't come up for sale very often.
> 
Or maybe they don't last very long before they start getting flakey 
;-)  To me, the NUC is a problematic form factor. I've been a 
troubleshooter for a wide range of industrial PC's, including 
passive/fanless models - and I know what sized aluminium box with how 
many fins it takes, to decently heatsink an ATOM, or a full-fledged 
Core i3/5/7 CPU (even the T/U/Y models). The NUC feels just too small 
and flat-surfaced for the CPU that's quietly ticking away inside. The 
elevated inner temperature also affects an SSD that serves as a boot 
disk... I certainly wouldn't buy a second hand NUC.

I'm a big fanboy of Intel ATOM CPU's, from Bay Trail onwards. For a 
variety of uses, not necessarily for DOS specifically...
My favourite construction is: get a passive-cooled MiniITX board with 
an ATOM, and add a slow-revolving fan. Or just an airshroud to direct 
the faint draft of air from the PSU fan through the CPU heatsink.

Frank


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Frantisek Rysanek]

Speaking of nice vs. less complete VESA BIOS ROM's, I've known Intel 
for not having a full set of VESA modes since their first integrated 
graphics adaptors (not sure if 810/815, but 845 and afterwards 
certainly) - namely, 16-color indexed VESA graphics modes were 
missing (anything with 4 bits per pixel), which prevented some old 
and odd CAD apps from working... and I recall some apps resulting in 
a white screen even in modes that theoretically should've worked...

And, Windows 98 have specific severe quirks which cause them a 
problem to install and run on 512+ MB of RAM. My friend Rayer has 
described many details on his website, only the page is in Czech:
http://rayer.g6.cz/os/os.htm#WIN98-512MB
Try google translator if interested :-)

Frank



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Thomas Desi]

speaking of „form factor“ I have to look at the „price factor“, too. 

The Spectra.at Board-Set, Mini-ITX H110 159315 comes EUR 769,- / Stk. (+ 
tax!!), delivery time 2-3 weeks…
(an no housing…)





> Am 29.04.2021 um 12:41 schrieb Adam Nielsen via Freedos-user 
> :
> 
>>> ...the board format does not matter much.
>>> It's the CPU model/generation that matters.  
>> 
>> NOT. AT. ALL.
>> 
>> each Intel/AMD CPU produced the last 20 years is able
>> to execute the same way that the previous versions did.
> 
> If it doesn't matter "at all" then where can I get a modern CPU with
> working support for ISA DMA?  It was removed back in one of the Pentium
> 4 chipsets so the CPU model/generation is definitely important.
> 
>> to summarize: unless you have special needs, just every mainboard
>> produced the last 40 years should work with ANYDOS. Don't ask for
>> sound...
> 
> That's no guarantee though.  Some modern machines only provide partial
> BIOS services - only enough to get common operating system installers
> to run and no more.  I have had machines that booted to DOS and I could
> install an operating system on and it ran fine, but they would lock up
> when I tried to run most DOS programs because they were missing a
> bunch of ROM BIOS services.  It looks like they don't always bother
> implementing the full feature set when for 99.999% of their customers
> it will never get used.
> 
> It seems UEFI machines are the worst offenders for this, as they ship
> with a BIOS compatibility layer that has been written from scratch, as
> opposed to older machines that run the same BIOS code that's been in
> use for decades.  They apparently left all the old BIOS code hanging
> around unchanged for years in those implementations, but when they had
> to write a BIOS-compatible layer for UEFI from scratch, it seems some
> vendors just did the bear essentials only.
> 
> One of these was a small form factor Intel NUC I bought a few years
> ago with the intention of installing Windows 98 on it to use for
> playing old Windows 3D games, but alas I couldn't even run the Windows
> installer either.  Many programs just made it freeze.  The device very
> specifically states that it only supports running a limited number of
> operating systems and they really mean it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adam.
> 
> 
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
> 



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Eric Auer]

Hi Adam,

while the ability to provide ISA-like DMA for PCI (e.g. sound cards)
or PCIe basically vanished at least 10 years ago, I am less pessimistic
about BIOS services. Can you give specific examples of too stripped
down BIOSes in recent mainboards? Wikipedia sounds more as if it took
until 2019 before a significant number of vendors stopped including
a CSM to provide BIOS-like services on their UEFI firmware? I have
also heard about VGA, VESA or VBE getting worse, for example no 8x14
font or only powers-of-two bytes per line in VBE framebuffer RAM etc.

Those do not sound as if they would seriously impact classic DOS apps
apart from the DOS game sound problem of having no Sound Blaster 16?

> If it doesn't matter "at all" then where can I get a modern CPU with
> working support for ISA DMA?  It was removed back in one of the Pentium
> 4 chipsets so the CPU model/generation is definitely important.
> 
> That's no guarantee though.  Some modern machines only provide partial
> BIOS services - only enough to get common operating system installers
> to run and no more.  I have had machines that booted to DOS and I could
> install an operating system on and it ran fine, but they would lock up
> when I tried to run most DOS programs because they were missing a
> bunch of ROM BIOS services.

> One of these was a small form factor Intel NUC I bought a few years
> ago with the intention of installing Windows 98...

Thanks for the NUC warning, but Win98 actually will switch from BIOS
to built-in drivers which are likely not able to cope with new chips.

How about classic DOS on the NUC? Which DOS apps locked up on which
other PC as you have mentioned above, trying to use which features?

Regards, Eric



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Adam Nielsen via Freedos-user]

> > ...the board format does not matter much.
> > It's the CPU model/generation that matters.  
> 
> NOT. AT. ALL.
> 
> each Intel/AMD CPU produced the last 20 years is able
> to execute the same way that the previous versions did.

If it doesn't matter "at all" then where can I get a modern CPU with
working support for ISA DMA?  It was removed back in one of the Pentium
4 chipsets so the CPU model/generation is definitely important.

> to summarize: unless you have special needs, just every mainboard
> produced the last 40 years should work with ANYDOS. Don't ask for
> sound...

That's no guarantee though.  Some modern machines only provide partial
BIOS services - only enough to get common operating system installers
to run and no more.  I have had machines that booted to DOS and I could
install an operating system on and it ran fine, but they would lock up
when I tried to run most DOS programs because they were missing a
bunch of ROM BIOS services.  It looks like they don't always bother
implementing the full feature set when for 99.999% of their customers
it will never get used.

It seems UEFI machines are the worst offenders for this, as they ship
with a BIOS compatibility layer that has been written from scratch, as
opposed to older machines that run the same BIOS code that's been in
use for decades.  They apparently left all the old BIOS code hanging
around unchanged for years in those implementations, but when they had
to write a BIOS-compatible layer for UEFI from scratch, it seems some
vendors just did the bear essentials only.

One of these was a small form factor Intel NUC I bought a few years
ago with the intention of installing Windows 98 on it to use for
playing old Windows 3D games, but alas I couldn't even run the Windows
installer either.  Many programs just made it freeze.  The device very
specifically states that it only supports running a limited number of
operating systems and they really mean it.

Cheers,
Adam.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Frantisek Rysanek]

On 28 Apr 2021 at 23:24, tom ehlert wrote:
> 
> > ...the board format does not matter much.
> > It's the CPU model/generation that matters.
> 
> NOT. AT. ALL.
> 
> each Intel/AMD CPU produced the last 20 years is able
> to execute the same way that the previous versions did.
> 
...okay, apologies, it is not my intention to start a flame war :-)

I agree that in terms of instruction set and memory/addressing modes 
supported, even the most recent x86 CPU's can still run 16bit DOS-era 
code.

What I meant by "CPU" in this case was the broader platform that goes 
with it. The chipset, the "evolutionary generation" of the 
"firmware". Speaking of the chipset, I'm referring to legacy 
peripheral hardware, at least the presence of a decent "legacy 
SuperIO" chip in moderately dusty history, vs. the gallop towards 
newer and speedier USB and PCI-e standards. Yes I'm aware that modern 
"firmware" still tends to facilitate DOS operation by providing 
keyboard and mouse services (or even PS/2 controller emulation 
through SMM) on top of physical USB hardware... Think about software 
that's written for slow x86 CPU's, and fails miserably on anything 
faster than a couple hundred MHz - and no, it's not just the Borland 
Pascal CRT library, there are others of this class. There are games 
that kind of relied on CPU speed in some ballpark, otherwise the 
animations are too fast to even notice etc. Older BIOSes used to 
allow you to mess with ISA MMIO windows available for use with your 
peripheral devices - with the demise of ISA, BIOS config options 
related to memory space between 640 kB and 1 MB have quickly 
vanished, and the "firmware" takes liberty at using this range for 
whatever option ROM's it sees fit, thus making any "conventional 
memory volume tuning" pretty problematic.

In all those respects, the CPU generation is a pretty good predictor 
of what kind of a "platform" you get around it.

Speaking of tiny x86 platforms, I'm wondering what happened to the 
Intel Quark. Initially this looked like a contender against the DMP 
Vortex, but only until you looked at the peripherals present on the 
reference motherboards with Quark. In terms of peripherals, it's like 
comparing a traditional large Legoes kit of late eighties (Vortex) to 
a slick and glittery Tamagotchi (Quark).

I do feel guilty of promoting a particular vendor / product line, but 
let me repeat this link that I sent yesterday:
  https://www.icop.com.tw/product_list/44
Notice that the particular board format is a proprietary 100x66 mm, 
called "tiny module" by ICOP. This is not a PC104 format - which 
means lower price. Anything that has a PC104 connector on it is 
automatically +50%.
The "tiny module" form factor is not significantly larger than an 
RPI, and while it does not have the perfomance of an RPi, in terms of 
tinker-friendly interfaces, it probably gives the RPi a run - 
especially if you're fond of the 486-era legacy x86 style. Some 
models have an SD slot, some have an onboard SPI flash disk to boot 
from. The SoC has got an on-chip USB EHCI and an on-chip 100Mb LAN. I 
personally prefer the Vortex86*DX* era hardware by ICOP, exactly for 
its 486-ish features and peripherals. The nominal clock tends to be 
600 to 800 MHz, but can be underclocked down to 1/8th of that, in the 
BIOS (or programmatically). The VDX boards have a discrete SIS/XGI 
Z9s PCI graphics with a dedicated 32MB VRAM and a pretty good VESA 
BIOS ROM (a rich selection of classic SVGA video modes). I don't like 
the Vortex86*SX* as much (for obvious reasons) and I don't like the 
newer developments from DMP as much either, because of the "modern 
direction" these have taken. The VDX hardware doesn't have nearly the 
sort of problem with heat that an RPi tends to have, without 
additional heatsink upgrades.

That said, even the cheapest Vortex motherboards are still more 
expensive than an RPi.

The larger Vortex board formats, i.e. PC104 or 3.5" biscuit, have IDE 
(or SATA) or CompactFlash coupled to an IDE channel, and other 
goodies - those board models obviously cost more. But, at least you 
have a choice, and it's still classic 486 era busses and interfaces. 
I'm wondering why ICOP never produced say an ITX form-factor 
motherboard with an ISA slot, or a full-length ISA+PCI PICMG board. 
It probably wouldn't pay off (pay for the R) because 
retrofits/refurbs of full-scale computers in production use are 
really few and far between, and just nostalgia probably wouldn't 
generate enough sales.

A side note on CPU clock rate: in the golden era of EIST, before 
TurboBoost, it was fairly easy to poke some EIST-related MSR to 
underclock the CPU core on the fly. So we're speaking say Pentium 4 
or Pentium M up to Core 2 45nm. Even that way, you typically wouldn't 
get lower than say 600 MHz to 1 GHz on a particular CPU, where the 
IPC was already a multiple of what the old Pentium MMX would 
provide... so the EIST underclocking is not enough to dodge the 
"Borland 

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Deposite Pirate]

April 29, 2021 11:31 AM, "Eric Auer"  wrote:

> Hi!
> 
>> There are PCEngines ALIX boards (AMD Geode) with VGA out, one
>> minipci slot. They are known to run FreeDOS. You probably
>> have to install it with PXE because there's no floppy or
>> CDROM drive.
> 
> According to https://www.pcengines.ch/alix.htm they are
> end of life and those few with VGA are out of stock.

They are not only sold by PCEngines, there are several
Embedded hardware online stores that have or stock and sell
them:

https://www.applianceshop.eu/pc-engines-alix-2d13.html


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Eric Auer]

Hi!

> There are PCEngines ALIX boards (AMD Geode) with VGA out, one
> minipci slot. They are known to run FreeDOS. You probably
> have to install it with PXE because there's no floppy or
> CDROM drive.

According to https://www.pcengines.ch/alix.htm they are
end of life and those few with VGA are out of stock.

https://www.pcengines.ch/apu2.htm seems to be with x86
CPU as well, but without any graphics?

Regards, Eric





___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Deposite Pirate]

April 29, 2021 12:06 AM, "Eric Auer"  wrote:
> So I would like to hear whether single board
> computers in similar size and price (not PC/104
> price level) with x86 compatible CPU exist and
> which of them can be recommended by people here.

There are PCEngines ALIX boards (AMD Geode) with VGA out, one
minipci slot. They are known to run FreeDOS. You probably
have to install it with PXE because there's no floppy or
CDROM drive. These are more expensive than a Raspberry Pi
or an older PC however, but less so than a new full blown
PC. Smaller than a SFF PC but larger than a Pi (about
10x10cm).


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Louis Santillan]

Phil’s Computer Lab has covered lots of DOS compatible Thin Clients.  I
personally have 5 fanless HP t5745.   Atom N280 (single core, dual thread)
CPUs, mine have 1GB-4GB RAM, 2GB IDE DOM, 10/100/1000 Ethernet by Broadcom,
serial port, PS/2 ports, Intel GL40 VGA & DisplayPort, will USB boot
FreeDOS and others.  Fairly small, about the size of a DVD-ROM drive.  I
even bought the expansion bays to allow you to fit a PCI or PCI-E card
(also adds a quiet fan) and a parallel port.  Still sell on eBay for $25.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5T8bmLxd_T3xTjY3fpBdT3zpZfHPtbDJ

https://www.parkytowers.me.uk/thin/hp/t5740/




On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 3:05 PM Eric Auer  wrote:

>
> Hi Tom,
>
> >> ...the board format does not matter much.
> >> It's the CPU model/generation that matters.
> >
> > NOT. AT. ALL.
> >
> > each Intel/AMD CPU produced the last 20 years is able
> > to execute the same way that the previous versions did.
>
> The point is that everything which is remotely
> similar to a Raspberry Pi uses ARM style CPU,
> but the SIZE and COST of Raspberry Pi (Thomas
> has mentioned Asus Tinker Board as example) are
> obviously tempting. It would be nice to have a
> non-ARM, x86 compatible hardware in that range.
>
> So I would like to hear whether single board
> computers in similar size and price (not PC/104
> price level) with x86 compatible CPU exist and
> which of them can be recommended by people here.
>
> Of course we can always buy x86 Mini-ITX with
> even a single normal size PCIe or PCI slot and
> many good old interfaces, but that would be a
> LOT larger than Raspberry style. With Nano- or
> Pico-ITX, even SATA becomes less common. Might
> not be a problem if the on-board M.2 or mSATA
> slot of other boards is what you want, but if
> you want to recycle existing 2.5 inch drives,
> SATA would be nice. I could name a number of
> other interfaces, but I am mainly interested
> to hear what YOU people have been using in the
> category of tiny, affordable x86 computers :-)
>
> Cheers, Eric
>
> PS: While Thomas does not want sound, of course
> I am also interested about variants with sound,
> maybe even ISA Sound Blaster compatible sound.
>
> > Ah, thanks, Frank. I don’t need sound, I actually don’t WANT sound
> > (and no fans)
> >
> > Th.
> >
>
>
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Eric Auer]

Hi Tom,

>> ...the board format does not matter much.
>> It's the CPU model/generation that matters.
> 
> NOT. AT. ALL.
> 
> each Intel/AMD CPU produced the last 20 years is able
> to execute the same way that the previous versions did.

The point is that everything which is remotely
similar to a Raspberry Pi uses ARM style CPU,
but the SIZE and COST of Raspberry Pi (Thomas
has mentioned Asus Tinker Board as example) are
obviously tempting. It would be nice to have a
non-ARM, x86 compatible hardware in that range.

So I would like to hear whether single board
computers in similar size and price (not PC/104
price level) with x86 compatible CPU exist and
which of them can be recommended by people here.

Of course we can always buy x86 Mini-ITX with
even a single normal size PCIe or PCI slot and
many good old interfaces, but that would be a
LOT larger than Raspberry style. With Nano- or
Pico-ITX, even SATA becomes less common. Might
not be a problem if the on-board M.2 or mSATA
slot of other boards is what you want, but if
you want to recycle existing 2.5 inch drives,
SATA would be nice. I could name a number of
other interfaces, but I am mainly interested
to hear what YOU people have been using in the
category of tiny, affordable x86 computers :-)

Cheers, Eric

PS: While Thomas does not want sound, of course
I am also interested about variants with sound,
maybe even ISA Sound Blaster compatible sound.

> Ah, thanks, Frank. I don’t need sound, I actually don’t WANT sound 
> (and no fans)
> 
> Th.
> 


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Felix Miata]

tom ehlert composed on 2021-04-28 23:24 (UTC+0200):

> However some one (Microsoft?) has announced that from now on
> 'modern' firmware needs no longer to provide 'BIOS' support

Intel, but I'm not sure "needs" was the term used to describe the cessation of
traditional BIOS services by omitting CSM.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion,
based on faith, not based on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[tom ehlert]

> ...the board format does not matter much.
> It's the CPU model/generation that matters.

NOT. AT. ALL.

each Intel/AMD CPU produced the last 20 years is able
to execute the same way that the previous versions did.

(with the exception that there might be CPU sepcific
microcode updates necessary,but this is completely aside
and above this discussion)

it's the (FlashEprom) firmware on the motherboard
that makes it 'BIOS' or 'UEFI' compatible. In 2021
virtually ALL available motherboards support both ways to
provide service to the rest of the world, both BIOS and UEFI.

However some one (Microsoft?) has announced that from now on
'modern' firmware needs no longer to provide 'BIOS' support

**
to make that clear:

there is no 'UEFI' or 'BIOS' firmware.

there is only firmware (a program in some EPROM) which provides
either 'BIOS' style or 'UEFI' style services


to summarize: unless you have special needs, just every mainboard
produced the last 40 years should work with ANYDOS. Don't ask for
sound...



Tom








___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Thomas Desi]

Ah, thanks, Frank. I don’t need sound, I actually don’t WANT sound ;)
(and no fans)

Th.

> On Wed,20210428- week17, at 22:55, Frantisek Rysanek 
>  wrote:
> 
> ...the board format does not matter much.
> It's the CPU model/generation that matters.
> For your practical purposes, those Pico-ITX boards behave just like 
> your regular PC with a similar CPU.
> 
> ATOM and the Core i3/5/7 machines will be all PCI-e and USB = not an 
> ideal platform for DOS. See the Vortex86DX on ICOP boards for 
> comparison. Much weaker CPU than an ATOM, but should be strong enough 
> for DOS-era software.
> https://www.icop.com.tw/product_list/44
> 
> Sadly, there's no SoundBlaster support - otherwise the VDX boards are 
> perfect for DOS.
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
> 



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS on (very) small form factor PCs?

[Thomas Desi]

ooh sorry, my link was the wrong one: 
I ment thinks like these: 
https://www.spectra-austria.at/produkte/ipc-komponenten/industrielle-pc-boards/pico-itx/
 


t

> Am 28.04.2021 um 17:30 schrieb Thomas Desi :
> 
> What are the experiences using (very)very small form factor PCs for Freedos 
> native?
> 
> I found this one
> https://www.solid-run.com/ 
> 
> on
> 
> https://hackaday.com/2016/09/30/very-very-tiny-x86-systems/#:~:text=The%20latest%20release%20from%20SolidRun,from%20the%20tiniest%20PC%20ever
>  
> .
> 
> "The SolidPC Q4 is one of the smallest x86 implementation you can find. It’s 
> based around the MicroSoM, a module even smaller than a Raspberry Pi, and 
> built around a carrier board that has all the ports you could ever want from 
> the tiniest PC ever.“
> 
> -Thomas
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS word processors / text editors

[Thomas Desi]

Hi John, 
err… you might be right about this. I will have a look at it, too.

I don’t actually care so much about keybindings, because I »program« them into 
my Tipro 128 PS/2 keyboard (»128«  means 128 keys available to program whatever 
I want…!), so I have custom made keycaps labelled the commands, press it and 
done. No querky pinky, no RSI, no fatigue or mental load on this, and AS FAST 
AS HELL. I am also not so fond of the Emacs-Style double commands (e.g. ^KX or 
alike), I prefer the VIM single letter commands, but then there you have the 
mode-thing, which drove me nuts lately and I switched to EMACS on Mac, WIN and 
LINUX (Raspberry3 Raspian) because… see above. BTW: Protext is a nice product, 
too! 
And! »Boček« can save in UTF-8!! (It pretends to be the only DOS Editor to be 
able to save into UTF, which is VERY interesting to me.! Still active in 
development seemingly!)

You are hitting the nail: It’s really annoying to me that in the moment  I 
found a program (or an operating system ;) which makes me think: »This is it!«, 
the itches turn up. Those little bits which make me think, its not worth to 
»change« to another system or program. 

Your response on VDE just arrived in time when I was thinking to sum up my 
»FreeDos« experience from a complete NON-tech user perspective who always 
despised  (MS-)Dos as ridiulous, like Steve Jobs thought us in his short 
comercial when he tries to open a spread sheet in does and makes fun of MS-Dos 
in 1992 (!) You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMX_FuOLoCI

I will do this »resumée", maybe I can contribute somethinkg to the FreeDos 
project from a perspective of a person who just wants to be productive with 
FreeDos in Text composing/editing. Fullstop. 

Regards, 
Thomas


> On Sun,20210418- week15, at 14:46, JR  wrote:
> 
> Hi Thomas
> I have had a quick look at VDE. It is very nice in that it supports PCL 
> printers directly. Correct me if I am wrong but it appears that key bindings 
> cannot be changed. Sprint and MicroStar both allow customisation of key 
> bindings. On the Windows front I use TextPad as an editor. It also allows key 
> bindings to be changed. Boxer is another fine Editor but only supports a 
> single character after key modifier(Ctrl/ Alt). Eg. Ctrl K is valid but Ctrl 
> K X is not supported.
> Regards
> John
> 
> On 2021/04/15 15:47, Thomas Desi wrote:
>> I am sure you found this anyway: https://sites.google.com/site/vdeeditor/Home
>> -Th.
>> 
>>> Am 15.04.2021 um 15:44 schrieb JR :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2021/04/15 15:39, Thomas Desi wrote:
 John,
 VDE is nice, and it comes with „vinst.com“ which lets you customise the 
 whole editor to the users needs/liking/workflow
>>> Thanks, I will be taking a close look.
 I am looking forward to try the Sprint Program!
 
 Note: I am looking for an easy converted ASCII <-> UTF8.
 Have you any knowledge of such a beast?
>>> Unfortunately not.
 Regards, Thanks again for offering in case a copy,
>>> Shout if needed and I will upload to Box and send you a link.
 Thomas
>>> PS. What part of the world are you in. I am in Cape Town, South Africa.
>>> 
> Am 15.04.2021 um 15:34 schrieb JR :
> 
> Hi Thomas
> I have only ever used version 1.01. It was distributed on nearly a dozen 
> 5" floppy disks and 3 printed manuals, User's Guide, Advanced User's 
> Guide and Reference Guide. It has a few quirks but is very stable 
> compared to many modern WP's. It also has a scripting language but I'm 
> not wild about it. You are welcome to a copy if it isn't already 
> available on the web.
> I have just looked up VDE and will investigate, thanks. I tried one of 
> the later DOS versions of WordStar which had a Wysiwyg preview option 
> which could help with page breaks before printing. I didn't like it and 
> stayed with Sprint. Also looked at Brief and other popular WP's (can't 
> remember their names) at the time before I chose Sprint.
> Regards
> John
> 
> On 2021/04/15 14:59, Thomas Desi wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> thanks for your experience account and software list.
>> I am intrigued - as »collecting« word processors/text editors in the 
>> "quest for the best« - I managed to find
>> the following. 
>> (https://winworldpc.com/download/c3806cc3-a010-c2a4-0911-c3a6e280947e)
>> 
>> What version woud you advice or are you using? There is a significant 
>> difference in size between v.1.00 and 1.01 as you can see…
>> 
>> thanks for your opinion on this. (I am currently working with VDE)
>> regards, Thomas
>>Borland Sprint 1.00 (5.25-360k)   1.00English 1.38MB  
>> 1
>>  Borland Sprint 1.01 (3.5-720k)  1.01English 1.52MB  1
>>  Borland Sprint 1.x Manuals  1.x English 48.9MB  1
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thu,20210415- week15, at 13:59, JR  wrote:
>>> 
>>> SP - Sprint - 

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS was dead...

[Felix Miata]

Liam Proven composed on 2021-04-16 06:16 (UTC-0400):

> I run openSUSE Tumbleweed on my machine in the office. I have been
> working from home for over a year now. I think that when I finally
> return to the office, it will be easier to reformat the machine and
> start over than to update a year-old rolling release that has been
> booted about 3 times in a year.

I have 24 64 bit PCs with Tumbleweed installed. Several have more than one TW
installed, so the installation count may be closer to 30. I have 4 32 bit with 
TW
updated since Jan 1, 6 updated last in 2020, 2 updated last in 2019. IME, 
updating
TW via zypper after 3-4 months since last prior update has never been a problem.
Waiting more than 6-8 months hasn't been terribly unusual either. Only 12 64 bit
PCs have had TW upgraded since 1 March. Only recently did I first have a problem
updating a TW last updated more than a year prior. That was because of a change 
in
compression used for rpms. Offline update cleaned that one up.

All that said, I wouldn't use zypper in the foreseeable future to upgrade one a
year since last because of that same change in compression, but I won't hesitate
to do it offline. The tweaks I make take longer to implement after doing a fresh
installation than the time required to upgrade.

Oh, and I don't ever use VMs except for using OS/2 to run DOS apps.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion,
is based on faith, not on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS was dead...

[Liam Proven]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 21:57, Jon Brase  wrote:

I mostly agree with you. I would perhaps quibble with some details.

> Nope, I meant CPU. You start out with an unprotected CPU architecture like 
> the 8086. The OS is basically just a set of hardware access libraries that 
> applications can use or not as they wish (as they have direct access to the 
> hardware).

MS-DOS was so minimal that there is an argument that you can't call it
an OS at all. Many apps simply bypassed most of it and "hit the metal"
directly simply for speed; this is why "IBM PC compatible" became a
benchmark, and the MS Flight Simulator one of the acid tests of
compatibility. They are forgotten now, but there were once many MS-DOS
 computers that were not IBM-compatible. I personally worked on some
Apricot machines, but there were also Victor, Sirius and others, which
ran their own versions of MS-DOS but had totally different hardware
architectures, with ROM, I/O and video memory in different places in
the memory map. They could run clean legal DOS apps, but not IBM PC
apps... and in the end there were almost no clean legal DOS apps.

But it was a wider gamut than even that. A few of my employers'
customers ran Jarogate Sprite systems. The Sprite seems to be
forgotten by computer history; I can't find any Web coverage at all,
except passing mentions in 35-year-old magazine articles.

The Sprite was a small, desktop, x86 minicomputer. The machines had no
video adapter at all, not even text, and no keyboard interface. The
computers were totally headless; it was only possible to interact with
them via serial terminals. They had multiple RS-232 ports on the back
and could drive 4-16 dumb terminals -- typically Wyse-60 or similar
terminals. They ran DR Concurrent CP/M; each terminal got a DOS
prompt. They were used for things like multiuser accounts packages,
where each terminal ran an instance of the app, all sharing one global
shared set of files. In the early 1980s this was _much_ cheaper than a
set of separate computers and a network... each terminal was cheaper
than just a network card, let alone the PC with the network card in!

I helped with migrating data off one onto a Microchannel Apricot
server running SCO UNIX (the successor to SCO Xenix). The data files
were some hundreds of megabytes; the Sprite had a big hard disk for
the time, and a 1.2MB 5.25" floppy drive. We were glumly looking at
using about a hundred floppies, and of course, a single read-write
error would mean we had to start again.

I had a brainwave. I copied PK-Arc onto the Sprite with a floppy. It
was the forerunner to PK-Zip, and it was a DOS-legal app. It just did
console output; no graphics, no box-drawing, no cursor control. It ran
fine under CCP/M. I was able to compress the accounts data on the
Sprite, from hundreds of meg down to a few meg per file, and each file
only needed to be split into 2 or 3 parts to fit on a floppy. A task
we thought would take days was finished in a few hours... thanks to an
old clean, DOS-legal app.

The reason for this anecdote being that it partly falsifies your
statement that:

> (the 286, of course, didn't have a way of running 8086 code with protection 
> enabled)

It did. It was just very uncommon.

https://books.google.cz/books?id=2y4EMBAJ=PA17_esc=y#v=onepage=false

http://bidmeadia.blogspot.com/2006/05/surviving-big-blue.html

> it immediately opens up this can of worms, because back compatibility with 
> applications that access the hardware directly often requires that they 
> continue to be allowed hardware access, while system stability with multiple 
> legacy OS instances running tends to demand that they not be allowed hardware 
> access.

Once upon a time there were a set of specifications for processor
architectures to be able to run a hypervisor. They were called the
Popek & Goldberg requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popek_and_Goldberg_virtualization_requirements

x86-32 did not have them, so everyone thought x86 couldn't do it.

But by the late 1990s, companies were emulating the entire x86
instruction set: e.g. Connectix' Virtual PC for PowerPC Macs running
Classic MacOS let you boot and run a complete 386 PC OS, including
Linux, on a Mac.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix

It is not generally understood but this is how VMWare worked. They
emulated the 386 on the 386, or rather the Pentium. The emulator ran
Ring 2 stuff  directly on the metal and when it switched to Ring 0 for
hardware access, VMware just ran that code in its software x86
emulator.

That is how VMware virtualised an un-virtualisable architecture. And
since in a proper grown-up OS that makes use of protection levels
(e.g. Linux or WinNT), most of the time code is executing in Ring 2,
it was quite efficient and surprisingly fast.

I interviewed the founder and "lead scientist" of Connectix,  Jon
Garber, about porting VirtualPC from MacOS on PowerPC to Windows on
x86, and he said "it's very efficient. What you want when 

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS was dead...

[Liam Proven]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 18:50, Harald Arnesen  wrote:
>
> I would try Void Linux and Alpine Linux on such hardware.

Good points. Thanks for the tips -- to be honest I did not know they
supported x86-32.

I have tried both before, but only in VMs. Void Linux I quite liked:
very simple and clean, but seemed feature-complete and fast. Alpine I
found very challenging indeed; although I have seen a running instance
with a full Xfce desktop, I was not able to install the packages and
get a graphical desktop working on my test install. The documentation
is scant and patchy, and because it is a rolling-release, often what
docs are out there are outdated, and tell you detailed steps to
accomplish something that no longer work 6 months later.

This is one of the big strengths of Arch Linux: although it's a
rolling release, the documentation is lavish and exceptionally
complete.

The snag with rolling-release distros is that they are only suitable
for machines in constant use, where you can frequently update. They
are problematic on machines you may only use once every few months;
each time you turn the computer on, you need to do a massive update,
and because some subcomponents may change in major ways, things can
break.

I run openSUSE Tumbleweed on my machine in the office. I have been
working from home for over a year now. I think that when I finally
return to the office, it will be easier to reformat the machine and
start over than to update a year-old rolling release that has been
booted about 3 times in a year.

-- 
Liam Proven – Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk – gMail/gTalk/gHangouts: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/Flickr: lproven – Skype: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 – ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS was dead...

[Jon Brase]

Apr 15, 2021 1:10:25 PM tom ehlert :


>you probably meant 'OS architecture' (not CPU).

Nope, I meant CPU. You start out with an unprotected CPU architecture like the 
8086. The OS is basically just a set of hardware access libraries that 
applications can use or not as they wish (as they have direct access to the 
hardware). When a protected architecture like is the 386 is introduced (the 
286, of course, didn't have a way of running 8086 code with protection enabled) 
it immediately opens up this can of worms, because back compatibility with 
applications that access the hardware directly often requires that they 
continue to be allowed hardware access, while system stability with multiple 
legacy OS instances running tends to demand that they not be allowed hardware 
access. So there is inevitably an incremental transition process, rather than 
an immediate snapover to a fully protected environment. The PC wasn't the only 
hardware platform and DOS wasn't the only OS that this happened to.

Of course, talking about this process in the present tense, as if it's 
something that still happens today, may not be the best, as any unprotected 
architecture introduced with modern transistor budgets likely has a specific 
purpose like hard realtime and will never see a transition to a protected 
architecture, and any general-purpose architecture introduced today is almost 
certain to have memory protection.


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS was dead...

[tom ehlert]

> I will note that Windows 95 *could* use DOS drivers. I/O
> performance suffered horribly since DOS drivers weren't thread safe,
> but there was a copy of DOS in the system VM for this purpose, even
> if it had nothing to do under normal circumstances.

> But to some degree this is a philosophical debate that will be
> present whenever you have a transition from a CPU architecture
> without protected memory to one with it and you move incrementally
> from a single-tasking OS to an environment where multiple instances
> of that single-tasking OS are virtualized alongside each other. At
> what point does your protected memory management software cease
> being an application running in top of the legacy OS and start being the 
> actual OS?

you probably meant 'OS architecture' (not CPU).

let me add this: fromm the moment EMM386 is started, *all* interesting
work is chained through it. it's just a policy decision to pass every
I/O port access to the real hardware, and all interrupts to the real
mode kernel.

that's the way FreeDOS and it's EMM386 works.

MSDOS worked like this as well , up to and including Windows 3.11

(according to Andrew Schulman, and I hope I cite him right)
starting with Windows 3.11 for Workgroups, this changed, and
EMM386 would take *some* part of OS work.
starting with Win95, *some* would be *most*, and EMM386 renamed to
VMM32.

yes it's a philosophical debate, and my opinion is that Win95 would
allow as much protection as possible, while still allowing DOS like
behaviour and drivers as necessary. That still doesn't mean that WIN95
would 'run on top of MSDOS'.

and the WinXP command line is probably the best DOS ever implemented, for
the vast majority at least. Few users of this mailing list are doing
   OUT DX,13
these days. all of them could use Windows command line, or linux
DosBox.



Tom



___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] DOS word processors / text editors

[Jim Hall]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 7:58 AM Thomas Desi  wrote:
>
> Hi John,
> thanks for your experience account and software list.
> I am intrigued - as »collecting« word processors/text editors in the "quest 
> for the best« - I managed to find
> the following. 
> (https://winworldpc.com/download/c3806cc3-a010-c2a4-0911-c3a6e280947e)
> [..]


I quite like Microsoft Word for DOS. It has a modern feel, so my
"finger memory" of ctrl-b to set boldface on/off and ctrl-i to do
italics isn't wasted.

Here's a video I recorded about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIXZtThIkF0

The video description has a link to download Word for DOS from
download.microsoft.com


Jim


___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user