Getting reluctant to contribute here, because I think we are discussing and aiming at different things.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 01:24, Rugxulo via Freedos-devel <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 7:45 AM Liam Proven via Freedos-devel > <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > It's not a 286 hardware feature, no. > > > > It's a feature of DOS-compatible OSes of the 286 era. It's a software > > feature not a hardware one. But it was enabled by XMS memory > > management, something that a DOS could only do on a 286 or later. > > Wikipedia says the 286 "was designed for multi-user systems with > multitasking applications". OS/2 1.x targeted it. You misunderstand. Have you tried OS/2 1.x? Have you researched it? I used it. Basing arguments on stuff you only know from Wikipedia is not a good tactic... You are conflating 2 different things here. - The 286 was designed for multitasking multiuser stuff, *yes* - This does *not* mean multitasking DOS, *no* > Wikipedia says "TopView is the first object-oriented, multitasking, > and windowing, personal computer operating environment for PC DOS > developed by IBM". Ever tried it? I haven't. It was before my time and it totally flopped and was discontinued. I don't think it could multitask *DOS apps*. That is what we're talking about here. Not multitasking _per se_ in general, no. Specifically multitasking DOS programs. > > It's a really big important difference. > > I'm sure you're more familiar with OS/2 1.x than I am. But clearly > that multitasked apps on a 286 in protected mode. OS/2 1.x was a 286 OS. It could multitask OS/2 apps and only OS/2 apps. It could not multitask DOS apps, because the 286 has no hardware facilities for multitasking DOS apps. You seem to just be dropping the important word here and then blithely continuing, when in fact dropping the word DOS here means you've started a whole new different discussion. > OS/2 was "a better DOS than DOS". That is OS/2 *2*. You can't just conflate OS/2 1.x and OS/2 2.x. They are totally different things, for different hardware, by different companies. OS/2 1.x -- 16-bit OS for the 80286 by MS and IBM. OS/2 2./x -- 32-bit OS for the 80386 by IBM on its own. Not the same thing! > Originally it was even codenamed > "DOS 5", right? Not that I know of, no. [[Citation needed]] > The so-called "European MS-DOS v4 that multitasks" > used NE format in real mode. That's similar to OS/2 (which also used > NE, as did Win 3.x). ... so? I don't see any relevance to the executable format here? > DOS was never their top priority, but it made them money. Whose top priority? Made who money? > Compatibility was important (for a time). To whom? Of what, with what? > I doubt they originally intended to sell multiple OSes, Who is "they"? > As far as DOS compatibility goes, Windows 3.1 and 95 had a lot in common. Both ran on top of DOS. Both could exit to DOS. Win95 was originally named Windows 4. So? > Win95 had DOS features (FAT32, LFNs) Hang on. Stop. You are conflating (again!) 3 or 4 things here. Keep your story straight. - Win95 had LFNs at launch, yes. - No, this was *not* a DOS feature and was not accessible from DOS. - No, it did *not* have FAT32 at launch. FAT32 appeared in Win95 OSR2, later, and that was not available to the public. It was not put on sale until Windows 98, three whole years later. > that NT didn't get until Windows 2000. Wrong, because of the conflation. NT 3.1 had neither. NT 3.5 supported LFNs. No, NT <= 4 did not support FAT32 natively, but there were addons to add it. Sysinternals did a read-only driver, mentioned here: https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=44400 Others did read-write drivers: https://forum.winworldpc.com/discussion/8117/offer-fat32-for-windows-nt4 > > I don't really see any connection here, TBH...? > > Wikipedia says "VisiCorp Visi On was a short-lived but influential > graphical user interface-based operating environment program for IBM > compatible personal computers running MS-DOS". So? What's that got to do with having a menuing app launcher for FreeDOS? I don't understand the relevance of this. It seems like a wild unrelated tangent to me. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
