On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 00:13, Rugxulo via Freedos-devel <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > I have never used Desqview nor Desqview/X
So try them! They are easy to find these days. As a general rule, it is unwise to try to argue based on stuff you've never tried. > (DJGPP v1 SDK) What does DV have to do with DJGPP? > I can't remember if they used a FreeDOS boot > disk or not. As a Linux, I doubt it. Why would it? > They claimed networking and LFNs. It's a form of Linux. LFNs are a DOS feature. I don't see the connection. > Most of the work on the 1.x (16-bit) versions of OS/2 was done by > Microsoft. Supposedly their 32-bit "portable rewrite" is what became > NT. (However, Win95 could still barely run atop a 386 with 4 MB of > RAM, so it stuck around on the consumer side.) I benchmarked it. It ran faster than WfWg 3.11. > Windows 3.0 and Windows NT 3.1 both had many DOS bugs that were only > fixed later. Er, so. Both are first releases. NT 3.1 isn't based on DOS, doesn't contain DOS, and can't run DOS. VMs for PCs were nearly a decade away. So I don't see the link here. > James Gosling was familiar with UCSD Pascal (based upon ETH Zurich's > Pascal P sources) which also used pseudo code. (P4 has been ported to > DOS, so has its successor P5.) What are "P4" and "P5" here? To me those mean Pentium 4 and the original Pentium architecture. > Long story short: I don't think FreeDOS not having a DOSshell clone is > a significant omission. Nobody will write the "program switcher" code > (too complex), and we already have file managers. So I don't see what > else it would offer. Again, you are conflating 3 different things and adding 1 + 1 + 1 and getting 4. *Please* stop. It's driving me crazy. :-( My argument, which you are grossly misrepresenting, is this: 1. DOSshell provided a useful facility: a menu-driven app launcher. I think FreeDOS should have a simple one that runs on bare metal in text mode, without colour, without animation, without graphics, without soft fonts, without any of that... but that runs with a standard DOS mouse driver. I specify these things because they are all attributes of the PGME launcher that have caused me problems in testing. 2. It also provided a file manager. That was handy, but as I noted, DOS has many of those. We don't need another. 3. It also had an edge over other DOS menu launchers: it did task-switching, too. That was quite a big win but I was *NOT* at any point arguing that FreeDOS needed that. I merely offered it as one reason that, 30 years ago, I configured DOSshell on my customers' machines. -- 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
