Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

2013-01-11 Thread David C. Kerber
DOS apps will run under Win7 32-bit, but not 64-bit.
 

 -Original Message-
 From: dmccunney [mailto:dennis.mccun...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:37 AM
 To: Discussion and general questions about FreeDOS.
 Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?
 
 On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:10 AM, dmccunney 
 dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Like I said, Win2k / XP aren't that bad, though they have 
 quite a few
  catches and omissions. It gets worse later on, but it depends on
  whether you think the tradeoff is worth it (or have the time,
  patience, knowledge, desire to bother trying to install older stuff
  and accept incomplete functionality).
 
 XP works fine here.  2K works fine on an older box that doesn't have
 the RAM to properly run XP.  I avoided Vista, but Win7 works well on
 the SOs laptop.
 
 The issues here haven't been whether something runs - it's been UI
 changes, and figuring out where MS put a particular function in the
 new version, because you don't get to it like you did before.
 
 (DOS apps don't run at all under Win7, unless you use a VM, but I
 found a version that does of the only DOS app the SO used - a DOS port
 of the old Unix game Larn.)
 
  I din't care about DOS compatibility - the DOS stuff I used all ran
  fine in an NTVDM.
 
  Trust me, it's not as perfect as it seems, though yes, for what it
  does, it does fairly well.
 
 I didn't say it was perfect.  I said it worked for me.
 
  Like I said elsewhere, it ran all the DOS stuff *I* used with no
  problem so I essentially didn't *care*.
 
  That's more of a coincidence (or your minimal needs) than a true
  testament to compatibility. Simply put, most people didn't care
  anymore or preferred heavier APIs, but having an incomplete /
  half-broken subsystem doesn't help them stay firm either.
 
 Yes.  So?
 
 I freely admit NTVDM and DOS compatibility leave somewhat to be
 desired, and there will be stuff that doesn't run or will have
 problems.
 
 I don't care, because it works for what I do with it.
 
  Granted, perhaps DOS native binaries aren't the easiest or greatest
  things to lug around for ages, but I don't know of a true 
 universal
  solution. Scripts? (Lua?) Bytecode? (Inferno?) We probably shouldn't
  have separate binaries for every single x86 OS, but for some people,
  source compatibility is good enough. Too bad they make so many
  horrible assumptions in the process.
 
 There's no such thing as a true universal solution.  (But then, how
 many folks *need* one?  Most folks either just run one platform, or
 don't *expect* to have the same programs available everywhere.  The
 folks most interested will be *developers* trying to target multiple
 platforms.)
 
 The closest is a Write once, run anywhere solution like Java.  Code
 is compiled to a tokenized binary targeted at an arbitrary virtual
 machine implemented by the Java runtime.  If there *is* a Java runtime
 for what you have, the code will run on it.  Java runtimes exist for
 almost everything.  (You still have to be aware of various issues -
 it's possible to write non-portable code in Java.)
 
 You lug about DOS native binaries and deal with compatibility issues
 because you either haven't found anything else that will do the same
 job, or there is something but you would rather deal with the issues
 than switch.
 
 One interesting trend is wider use of scripting, because current
 hardware can run script languages fast enough to make them competitive
 with other languages.  I'm seeing an increasing amount of stuff
 written in Python, which is available for Windows, Linux, and OS/X,
 using widget libraries like Qt so it largely looks and acts the same
 on any supported platform.
 __
 Dennis
 https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519
 
 --
 
 Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
 MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your 
 skills current
 with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
 MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at:
 http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122712
 ___
 Freedos-user mailing list
 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
 
--
Master HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, MVC, AJAX, Knockout.js, Web API and
much more. Get web development skills now with LearnDevNow -
350+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts.
SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122812
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

2013-01-11 Thread Louis Santillan
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Rugxulo rugx...@gmail.com wrote:

 Just to be clear, I am thinking of FreeDOS here, so this isn't all
 meant to be totally off-topic. IMHO, FreeDOS 2.0 should have more
 compilers and interpreters, and I've weakly tried over the past few
 months to carefully add a few to iBiblio. Yes, interpreters are often
 (but not always) slower, but they are easier to use, and many times
 speed isn't relevant (unless done across heavy data or very
 frequently).

 For interpreters, (in lieu of only using DEBUG + QBASIC clones) I
 would suggest BWBasic, Lua, Regina REXX, AWK, or something similar for
 BASE for FreeDOS 2.0. (Or maybe Pascal-S or P5, but I'm not sure how
 well accepted those would be, maybe too limited.) Oh, and also maybe
 something related to ever-popular C:  EiC, PicoC, CINT [not built yet
 / untested], etc. (Perl and Python are too big, but perhaps we can use
 older Perl 5.005 or such.)

 And I've gotten Ruby 1.8.7 to build, and now that it's an ISO
 standard, maybe somebody would care, but dunno, who knows.   :-)


A long time back, FreeDOS community fought hard against having a default
compiler or assembler (this was around the time of the freeware TC 1.01
release).  Back then however, many of the tools were specific to one C
compiler/Assembler or another, and ports to open source equivalents  the
open compilers/assemblers were still catching up.  One problem almost all
of them had was building the FD kernel.

Personally, I've always liked MicroC and DJGPP.  Maybe some creative use of
UPX would be helpful.

-L
--
Master HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, MVC, AJAX, Knockout.js, Web API and
much more. Get web development skills now with LearnDevNow -
350+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts.
SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122812___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user