Danilo,
> First of all, if the idea of an 80x25 single file editor frightens you, > you're either a wimp or too young to have done any programming when that > was the norm. May I introduce you to Turbo Pascal 3.0? 80x25 text is the > best there is. Tom is neither, but you could argue that he could use more modern, more advanced editors for DOS, with higher text mode resolutions. On the other hand, his impressive FreeDOS development track record shows that cross-compiling from another system or using DOS in a window while using another host operating system for the rest of your activities does not keep you from being productive DOS-wise :-) I think it is an important point that ancient machines are no longer widespread. There is little use in having a 640k, 16-bit scandisk or defrag for FAT32, if nobody has managed to connect a large disk to such ancient hardware. So it is fine for me that dosfsck needs a 386 to check FAT32 partitions. People today seem to be more worried about the other end of the spectrum: Why is DOS limiting them to 2 TB disk size or 3 GB of RAM, running on only 1 of their 16 CPU cores? Not that I would know ANY application for DOS which would need that kind of power, I agree that people wonder whether DOS *may* use it, now that the 2020 PC on their desk has it anyway :-) Cheers, Eric _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
