On 8/31/2020 7:16 PM, Jon Brase wrote:
> Not that convincing rationale considering rather modest overhead
necessary.
Recall that FreeDOS isn't just about having a FOSS alternative to
MS-DOS for modern machines (where you're really better off just using
Linux and DOSBox), or for your early-90s 486 retrogaming machine, it's
also meant to be an alternative to MS-DOS for the very oldest PC
hardware, all the way back to the original IBM 5150. The core software
might therefore be expected to work in very little RAM. As I recall,
the minimum configuration for the 5150 had only 16k of RAM.
Well, yes and no. On a bare minimum PC with only 16KB of RAM, even
PC-DOS 1.0 would not run, as this was just for the absolute minimum 14KB
IIRC, DOS 2.0 was something in the order of 30KB already. So to run any
PC with "DOS", you needed a machine with at least 64KB of RAM, or you
could just work with the ROM BASIC...
But in general, a lot of those simple command line tools, that in fact
have a command line "line" input (right out of my head, I can only think
of EDLIN and DEBUG), should be able to work in minimalistic
environments. And as there aren't many tools where ZB's idea would make
sense in his opinion, it seems a bit like brewing up a tempest in a
teacup... ;-)
And another reason why this might not be in general a good idea is if we
take compatibility with old(er) DOS software/environments serious, one
might want to consider that DOS (in its basic form) was able to run on
non-memory mapped devices, like serial terminals, which might limit your
ability to move the cursor quite a bit. Yes, a bit of a stretch
nowadays, but something to keep in mind... :-P
Ralf
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
