From: "Ralf Quint" <freedos...@gmail.com>
To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] New Old Timer reporting :-)
But DOS at its core is a 16bit OS, designed to run on a very specific CPU with a 20bit address bus, hence a 1MB address limit. And for more than a decade, people were able to create excellent software just fine.hi> DOS is based on 8086 architecture, with 1MB of RAMWasn't protected mode supposed to extend that? Anyways, I'm running on a 48MB machine and even DSL and tinycore had problems with such a low amount, which is somewhat disturbing for the preservation of technology.
DOS memory manager historically limit the amount of RAM via EMM/EMS to 32 or 64MB of RAM. That ought to be enough for anyone really interested in programming for DOS.> and at times rather finicky ways to extended this amount for application running on top of DOS.what would be the maximum? 32 bits can address 4GB, 16 bits would be 64KB (which is definetely NOT enough for everyone :D) so it's already kind of a hack to have anything in between..
>Sorry, I am programming for far too long, in a lot of different programming languages, as to be buying into this nonsense.Time can be a good OR a bad thing but, it does not address the argument.> Well, I might actually have found a reasonably priced one and with a little bit of luck, I might have have one by Christmas.Cool! x86 is rather surprising (to me) for a SBC as ARMv8 and beyond will be all the rage going forward (got a little one here as well :)).. so the emulation route would probably be needed most of the time.> Sorry, but there are enough programming languages around for use with DOS, there is no need to "even more", specially not any of those that have become self-serving solutions that only solve issues that nobody has...I agree with you here, which is why I've been (jokingly) writing "even" before the "more" ever since I suggested that. But skimming the mailing list I saw some people expressed that want, so my suggestion was a quick way to get them that without any additional work, like I said, C is probably a better target, it also has a bunch of those compilers and lower resistance of course.
Well,...
The biggest problem that I see with/for FreeDOS is the number of people actually still interested in working with/for (Free)DOS. That number has always been limited, but has gotten even smaller over the years. Beside Jim, who started this, I might actually now be the longest surviving member here, being more or less active since late '95 or early '96. A lot of people from the early years have come and gone, for various reasons. But what has become a slow but seemingly steady stream is that there are new people showing up once in a while, with a whole plethora of grand ideas, that very quickly end up nowhere. As it seems, mostly because the vast majority of those doesn't understand what DOS is. And that seems to be part of the overall trend, where people are coming up with solutions for issues that people pretend to have in order to solve problems that nobody has...
Ralf
| Virus-free. www.avast.com |
_______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
