On Tue, 24 Jan 2023, Bret Johnson wrote:
For purposes we're discussing here, I don't think DOSBox (or any of its
forks, including vDOS) is a viable solution.
DOSBox really isn't DOS. It's an environment designed to run certain
DOS applications. A lot of stuff is missing in DOSBox that's needed to
make it a "real enough" DOS to be used for development and testing.
E.g., a lot of the internal structures that some DOS "extenders" need to
look at (like certain TSRs and Device Drivers) simply don't exist on
DOSBox.
A perfect example of this are the "standard" DOS Devices: NUL, CON,
COM1-COM4, AUX, LPT1-LPT3, PRN, and CLOCK$. In DOSBox, the only two
that exist in a form where other programs can "see" them using standard
methods (by scanning through the linked list of Device Driver addresses)
are NUL and CON.
Things like that can cause lots of problems in certain situations.
Though the hardware emulation may be useful, it would be better for such a
situation to use that as a base to run an actual DOS on.
-uso.
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
