Nobody says you gotta run a 32-bit version of dos on a system that isn't 32-bit. What's wrong with just leaving the version that's already running there, and just use the 32-bit version on 386+ machines. Nobody said the current version would disappear just because a 32-bit version shows up. Still a nonissue as far as I'm concerned.
On Jan 3, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jan 2015, Travis Siegel wrote: > >> >> On Jan 2, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: >>> People are free to fork off and make a new project based on FreeDOS. No >>> problem there. But once you break compatibility with existing >>> applications, you lose a lot of your potential user base. And as soon as >>> you go to 32 bits, you lose all of the early hardware. >> >> I'm puzzled at this. >> Why does going to 32-bit mean all old hardware will be broken? > > Because old hardware exists, like my 5160, that runs DOS and is still > 16-bit? Obviously you can't run a 32-bit OS on a 5160, but DOS will run > just fine. All of that would be broken by moving to 32-bit. > >> 32-bit os doesn't mean no old hardware, it simply means drivers need to >> do something to make the translation. > > ...And how do you expect to run this OS on a 5160? Or an AT? Systems that > run DOS just fine now? You knock out probably half the audience for > FreeDOS by eliminating pre-386. > > -uso. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
