Hi Liam,
if I understand you correctly then you say I behaved as if you were not well-informed when you said that config files have different names in FreeDOS. Now given that you ARE well informed, you must have been talking about something else than config.sys and autoexec.bat because those 2 CAN use the same filenames in FreeDOS and MS DOS. Which means you must have meant OTHER config files, but which ones do you mean specifically? It was in no way my intention to make you angry by MENTIONING file naming possibilities! > Drive A: is the 5.25" disk drive > Drive B: is the 3.5" disk drive > > This does not work in 4DOS, because 4DOS insists that text output > with the `ECHO` command has matching single or double quotes Interesting. We do not advertise 4DOS that much, though, given some licensing details, if I remember correctly. I hope FreeCOM command.com has fewer such incompatibilities. > FreeDOS commands are different in places; output is different in > places. That is fair... Now that we have been talking about config files: FreeDOS does not implement the config.sys menu syntax of MS DOS 6, but uses a different syntax, yes. There was some discussion about that years ago. As there were too few users who wanted the kernel to be a drop-in replacement for the MS DOS kernel, while many users start with the default config dropped by the installer and add their own extensions manually, there never was enough momentum to add MS DOS style config menu syntax. Maybe there even were some patches offered, but I honestly do not remember. Actually I wonder whether DR DOS, PC DOS or other commercial DOS kernels support the MS DOS config menu syntax and whether they (also) support their own variations and extensions of it? >> PS: No, I do not need downloads of other copyrighted DOSes. That was related to DR DOS and PC DOS. As far as I know, only the core files of DR DOS are freely available (also EDR DOS) while PC DOS is at best abandonware? If PC DOS has officially been made freeware, then I have missed the accouncement, sorry. But no, this was not meant as complaining about AVAILABILITY, it can be read explicitly as ME not planning to switch to a less free DOS while I already have a more free one. Which I do like to compare in features and compatibility to others. I do know that MS has made very old versions of MS DOS free or even open, but I doubt that people use such old versions. I also doubt that any DOS vendor cares about whether their twenty or thirty year old products are found in www today. > You do not appear to be interested; you only seem to want to needle > me. I am not rising to it. You do not seem to want to know. To be more specific, I was hoping for some insights of how much RAM you were using for what, to get an idea of where the areas are in which FreeDOS is wasting RAM versus where it already is doing okay. Both for kernel and shell and for various drivers. It is not my intention to whine about copyrights, but it is not my intention either to install a whole virtual machine just to find out more about the vague hint that DR DOS or PC DOS uses less RAM than FreeDOS. It would have been nice if you would have been willing to talk about it, but it certainly is not worth the stress to accuse each other of all sorts of things instead of doing a little mailing list chat about compatibility and RAM. No worries! Eric _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
