Re: DR-DOS

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:12:02PM +0100, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > Latest updates... > > I've taken the downloads for Enhanced DR-DOS 7.01-6 and 7.01-7, > trimmed the boot disk image to work with Virtualbox, added the actual > files to make the boot images bootable,

Re: DR-DOS

Latest updates... I've taken the downloads for Enhanced DR-DOS 7.01-6 and 7.01-7, trimmed the boot disk image to work with Virtualbox, added the actual files to make the boot images bootable, and also added in the other updated commands -- SYS.COM, XCOPY, TASKMGR, SHARE, and their README files

Re: DR-DOS

On 17 November 2017 at 14:30, Liam Proven <lpro...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hope this is vintage enough. > > I've been playing around some more with my projects to create VMs / > bootable USB keys with PC DOS 7.1 and DR-DOS. Status update: I now have a working VirtualBox VM w

Re: DR-DOS

On 23 November 2017 at 21:31, Christian Groessler via cctalk wrote: > > When your are talking about editors and DOS, the only answer is BRIEF! Now that I _have_ heard of, yes. Never used it, though. Never really was a programmer. The tiny bit of coding I did on the PC was

Re: DR-DOS

On 23 November 2017 at 21:28, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > This must be a uSloth TCP/IP you are speaking of. There's the one from FTP > software which was based on the one done at MIT which was freeware. That one > was definitely DOS-era - it ran on DOS 1 and DOS 2. I

Re: Editor [was: Re: DR-DOS]

editors, the passable RPED and LocoScript. Then I started working, and learned Edlin, then the DR-DOS 5 editor, then the slightly better MS-DOS 5 EDIT. I also learned the Novell Netware editor, and Xenix vi. I worked with and supported WordStar, NewWord, WordStar Express (totally different!), Wo

Re: DR-DOS

On 11/23/17 21:28, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > From: Liam Proven > TCP/IP basically postdates the MS-DOS era, in PC terms, and it's Bloaty > McBloatface. This must be a uSloth TCP/IP you are speaking of. There's the one from FTP software which was based on the one done at

Re: DR-DOS

> From: Liam Proven > TCP/IP basically postdates the MS-DOS era, in PC terms, and it's Bloaty > McBloatface. This must be a uSloth TCP/IP you are speaking of. There's the one from FTP software which was based on the one done at MIT which was freeware. That one was definitely DOS-era

Editor [was: Re: DR-DOS]

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 06:53:18PM +0100, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: [...] > But only someone who thinks that Emacs or Vi are usable editors could > think this was an appealing virtualisation solution. Oh my, I know you are not offensive and I think flame over editors is really stupid thing to

Re: DR-DOS

On 22 November 2017 at 11:25, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:15:00PM +0100, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > [...] >> A file-based virus could escape _if_ the VM had access to the host >> filesystem. But mine don't, partly because it's

Re: DR-DOS

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:15:00PM +0100, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: [...] > A file-based virus could escape _if_ the VM had access to the host > filesystem. But mine don't, partly because it's moderately hard, partly > because it takes a _ton_ of RAM in DOS terms. Not really: QEMU can be

Re: DR-DOS

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:15:00PM +0100, Liam Proven wrote: > On 21 November 2017 at 19:16, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > > As of "things" mentioned above, my current understanding is, those may > > be both active code (virri, worrmms etc), as well as Darth Vader's > > hand reaching

Re: DR-DOS

ackaged utils and stuff), so I > might actually go for it - laziness pays. As you prefer. It has a _very_ slow release cycle, though. > But the main reason for me > to go there would be to play with assembler, rather than with other > software. DOS assembler can be run on almost a

Re: DR-DOS

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Liam Proven wrote: > On 17 November 2017 at 19:02, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > > Please excuse me if my remark is unnecessary, but if I read you right, > > you have: > > [...] > > "Things" can escape from VMs. I have plenty of Xen warnings

Re: DR-DOS

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017, jim stephens via cctalk wrote: > > > On 11/20/2017 4:27 PM, Liam Proven wrote: > > On 20 November 2017 at 18:57, jim stephens via cctalk > > wrote: > > > The archive.org snapshots may have had the blank images, but they also > > > seem > > > to have

Re: DR-DOS

On 11/20/2017 4:27 PM, Liam Proven wrote: On 20 November 2017 at 18:57, jim stephens via cctalk wrote: The archive.org snapshots may have had the blank images, but they also seem to have grabbed the archived downloads as well. This is an arbitrary link to the

Re: DR-DOS

On 20 November 2017 at 18:57, jim stephens via cctalk wrote: > > The archive.org snapshots may have had the blank images, but they also seem > to have grabbed the archived downloads as well. > > This is an arbitrary link to the 3/26/2016 snapshot. There are quite a few >

Re: DR-DOS

display two dots No. The original DR-DOS Enhancement Project website -- http://www.drdosprojects.de/ -- is no longer there. The downloads page for this seems to be relatively intact on archive.org.  I didn't see you had checked there for their original work. The download I found for 7.01-8

Re: DR-DOS

On 17 November 2017 at 19:02, Tomasz Rola <rto...@ceti.pl> wrote: > > Please excuse me if my remark is unnecessary, but if I read you right, > you have: > > 1. Downloaded "empty" disk image - which apparently boots enough to > display two dots No. The original

Re: DR-DOS

All I need to do now is work out how to make the hard disk bootable, > and I'm in business. Boot some other OS, (I am partial to GRML Linux, well packed with rescue stuff and more - https://grml.org/ ); + fdisk, mark bootable? > The DR-DOS 7 SYS command won't do it, as the files aren't nam

Re: DR-DOS

ou can kick it off with a single command. The only caveat is that you need to boot into OpenDOS/DR-DOS in order to get enough free lower RAM to run the build process. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Coll

Re: DR-DOS

that the build process is horribly complex -- I can find the link to a description of the horrors somewhere. Something like 9 different compilers are apparently used. So I hope not to need that, but appreciate the offer! What I am planning to do is combine the released boot files for PC-DOS 7.1 an

Re: DR-DOS

On 17 November 2017 at 16:12, william degnan <billdeg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a few original Dr dos disks. Versions 5, 6, 7. Would these help if > I am imaged and uploaded to my site? What I'd suggest is checking what's there first. :-) I have DR-DOS 6, from VetusWare. Th

Re: DR-DOS

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, william degnan via cctalk wrote: I have a few original Dr dos disks. Versions 5, 6, 7. Would these help if I am imaged and uploaded to my site? Liam, if you need me to I can build a full distro of OpenDOS 7 - I've got a machine that I can build the original sources

Re: DR-DOS

I have a few original Dr dos disks. Versions 5, 6, 7. Would these help if I am imaged and uploaded to my site? Bill Degnan twitter: billdeg vintagecomputer.net On Nov 17, 2017 10:10 AM, "Liam Proven via cctalk" <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Might be more helpful t

Re: DR-DOS

It is *not* my day. I don't know how a copy-and-paste of some plain text magically acquired attachments; that was not intentional. My apologies. -- Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr:

Re: DR-DOS

Might be more helpful to include downloads! I'm still working on VMs, but I know have bootable diskette images of both. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time either has been made available. DR-DOS 7.08 is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz8nrdv7h4sgr6o/drdep7018.zip?dl=0 You'll

DR-DOS

I hope this is vintage enough. I've been playing around some more with my projects to create VMs / bootable USB keys with PC DOS 7.1 and DR-DOS. Right now I'm focusing on DR-DOS 7.1 and the DR OpenDOS Enhancement Project, because that's FOSS and AFAICS it can be redistributed, which I can't

Re: VCF books (Was: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough

I don't know about using eBay as things are all over the place. I have paid from $0.99 + s to $29.99 w/ free shipping (for something that is useful e.g. HMS for 5150 in unopened condition). My average seems to be $9.99 for more popular stuff and $4.99 for esoteric stuff (say GTO to the 7327

Re: VCF books (Was: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough

If it’s what the market will bear eBay provides the answer :-) http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=ibm%20pc%20technical%20reference_Complete=1=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

VCF books (Was: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough

Can anybody advise me how much I should charge for PC Technical Reference Manuals (IBM binders in slipcases) and Windows Resource Kits (big book - only real documentation for Windoze) I've got a lot of different ones, and no longer feel the need for them. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

If it's any help, . . . Among the stuff that I'm taking to the consignment table at VCF are a bunch of Windows Resource Kit, and some Windows programming books. (Half a dozen boxes, NOT including anything already in FPUIB.) But, with this structure, and being more "premium", they ain't free.

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

- Original Message - From: "Liam Proven" <lpro...@gmail.com> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk@classiccmp.org> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:47 AM Subject: Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count? On 1

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

> That's considerably more elegant than the way I use, to get my 98SE boxes to > boot into DOS to start with (which I prefer, in case I want to do anything > that requires Windows not to be running, e.g. disk repairs); I just re-named > 'WIN.COM' to 'LOSE.COM'. So I get an error message grumbling

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

> > Exactly! This! > > All versions of W9x run in 386 protected mode, with DOS sessions in > the 386's Virtual 8086 mode. > > There was no difference that I'm aware of between them. > > Between WfWg 3.11 and 9x, yes. Between 9x and NT, yes. But 95/98/ME, no, > TTBOMK. > > If there _was_ some

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

> From: Chuck Guzis > I routinely use Win98SE for my DOS tasks--it boots into DOS quite > nicely if you edit the MSDOS.SYS file to say BootGUI=0. That's considerably more elegant than the way I use, to get my 98SE boxes to boot into DOS to start with (which I prefer, in case I want

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Chuck Guzis > > > I routinely use Win98SE for my DOS tasks--it boots into DOS quite > > nicely if you edit the MSDOS.SYS file to say BootGUI=0. > > That's considerably more elegant than the way I

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 12:21 PM, jim stephens wrote: > I used Windows 95 for dos multitasking. Windows 95 booted the processors > into real mode dos, then ran the windows system out of that base dos much > like Windows 3.1 had. As such, the dos boxes all shared actual access

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

On 07/31/2016 09:30 PM, jim stephens wrote: > If anyone on the list has it, I think there was a very detailed > walkthru about how this worked published as well, again I think it > was in a book, and may be hard to find. One of the "inside" or > "beneath" type books. Maybe someone has such with

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

On 7/31/2016 4:48 PM, Liam Proven wrote: On 31 July 2016 at 20:21, jim stephens wrote: I used Windows 95 for dos multitasking. Windows 95 booted the processors into real mode dos, then ran the windows system out of that base dos much like Windows 3.1 had. As such, the

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

On 31 July 2016 at 20:21, jim stephens wrote: > I used Windows 95 for dos multitasking. Windows 95 booted the processors > into real mode dos, then ran the windows system out of that base dos much > like Windows 3.1 had. As such, the dos boxes all shared actual access to >

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

On 07/31/2016 12:59 PM, jim stephens wrote: > > The booted system on Windows 95 is real mode dos, and that allows all > of the dos boxes you spawn to share the same virtual to physical > address space. > > Windows 98 still did the same trick, but would only map a single > physical address

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

On 7/31/2016 11:49 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: On 07/31/2016 11:21 AM, jim stephens wrote: Windows 98 switched to protected mode almost immediately on boot, and all the dos boxes were synthesized in virtual 8086 mapped mode, and had no underlying booted dos environment. I'm not sure that I

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 07:18:19PM +0200, Liam Proven wrote: > On 31 July 2016 at 18:23, Tomasz Rola wrote: [...] > > > Other possibility is, can it work better in some other virtual > > machine? Qemu/KVM, VMWare? > > I am running on OS X here, and I prefer VBox to VMware, but I

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

On 07/31/2016 11:21 AM, jim stephens wrote: > Windows 98 switched to protected mode almost immediately on boot, > and all the dos boxes were synthesized in virtual 8086 mapped mode, > and had no underlying booted dos environment. I'm not sure that I follow here. I routinely use Win98SE for my

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

On 7/31/2016 10:18 AM, Liam Proven wrote: DesqView: yes to multitasking, no to graphics. The only snag is that it is itself DOS based, so you don't get a lot of free RAM in your sessions. But it works, and it's much lighter and faster than even v3 of Windows. If you want an actual graphical

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

and faster than even v3 of Windows. If you want an actual graphical GUI, DV/X can do that. > >> I am also trying to get a DR-DOS 8 VM up and running. DR-DOS 7.03 is >> no problem, but I've had no joy getting DR-DOS 8.1 to install to hard >> disk. It's reluctant to SYS a ha

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 06:23:57PM +0200, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 08:57:08PM +0200, Liam Proven wrote: > > I'm experimenting with some old DOS versions, notably PC DOS, in VirtualBox. > > > > I have a PC-DOS 2000 system with DesqView and DesqView/X working > > fairly well --

Re: Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

between them without quitting and starting like mad). So, could DesqView give me something like this? From all descriptions I have read so far, it could not. But I am not sure. Yes, I should have tried to check it by myself, but there is no time to follow every dream. > I am also trying to get a

Is MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS vintage enough to count?

I'm experimenting with some old DOS versions, notably PC DOS, in VirtualBox. I have a PC-DOS 2000 system with DesqView and DesqView/X working fairly well -- no networking yet but I'm working on it. I am also trying to get a DR-DOS 8 VM up and running. DR-DOS 7.03 is no problem, but I've had