I disagree here: the important thing is to get the job done. After that
if there is a nice interface, it can be great, but not essencial. In
DR-DOS you only have one CHKDSK without UI. Why is the focus of
scandisk on the interface I cannot imagine, even to the point of
someone making an empty i
I am going to change the way EMM386 works a final time and since EMM386 with VCPI
support is close to signing off as a generally stable release as far the VCPI feature,
I'm posting the status so people know where we're at and have a last chance for input
on VCPI-related mods.
NIOS has problems
On 2004-03-27, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
> Also, this will be fine if DEBUG implements support for different
> radix: say, "18h" for hex, "10t" for decimal and "101010i" for
> binary. Also, may be used ADA-like syntax 2$10101, 10$123, 16$FF,
> $FF, where radix is a decimal value.
Just another sugg
Alain escribió:
I disagree here: the important thing is to get the job done. After
that if there is a nice interface, it can be great, but not essencial.
In DR-DOS you only have one CHKDSK without UI. Why is the focus of
scandisk on the interface I cannot imagine, even to the point of
someone
At 09:21 PM 3/29/2004 +0200, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
>>Not yet, looks like it should be. I'll see about it, read what MS docs say about
>>the option. Should be a reasonably quick add, since it's awfully close to NOEMS in
>>a lot of behaviors.
>
>suggested using FRAME=NONE to Erwin, since he needs
Aitor Santamari'a Merino escreveu:
Luchezar Georgiev escribio':
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:08:32 -0300, Alain wrote:
about fat32 testing: I believe a working DOSFSCK 2.10 just what is
needed (not what is whished for).
Actually, I agree! If Eric can say "FreeDOS SMARTDRV is LBACACHE", why
not s
Hi Michael,
Not yet, looks like it should be. I'll see about it, read what MS docs say about the option. Should be a reasonably quick add, since it's awfully close to NOEMS in a lot of behaviors.
suggested using FRAME=NONE to Erwin, since he needs to limit VCPI to 2MB, but NOEMS makes 32MB on
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:00:06 +0200, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
does not imply the manufacturers or even the creators of the generic
BIOS know the BIOS code very good. BIOS code developed in same way as
Windows:
...and DOS
keep compatibility and attach some really ugly extensions and
work-arounds.
Ind
At 04:58 PM 3/29/2004 +0200, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
>btw, is FRAME=NONE supported in EMM386.EXE rc2 ?
Not yet, looks like it should be. I'll see about it, read what MS docs say about the
option. Should be a reasonably quick add, since it's awfully close to NOEMS in a lot
of behaviors.
--
Luchezar Georgiev schreef:
As far as I see, LinuxBIOS *replaces* the built-in BIOS, whereas I'm
talking about fitting an [D]OS kernel into the free space of *existing*
BIOS. No one should know better their board than the manufacturer itself
who has bought the generic BIOS from Award (Phoenix),
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:43:26 +0200, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
Luchezar Georgiev schreef:
I think that each OS has its own niche. Neiether Linux nor DOS can oust
each other. But try to fit a Linux in the BIOS flash ROM chip when you
have only several tens of kilobytes free there!
www.linuxbios.org
As
Hello Bernd,
BB> can Lucho, Michael or Tom confirm VDS is only needed when EMS is provided?
VDS is required, if logical adresses (as seen from CPU) !=
physical addresses (as seen from UDMA controller).
In praxis, with our current EMM386, addresses <= 0xa are mapped
identical, so everything w
that's nice.
So VDS is required when EMS is served,
not when VCPI and/or UMBs are provided.
NOEMS and EMS settings use different blockdevice-names:
one more optimizing thing for me then:
@echo off
rem load UDMA from commandline using DEVLOAD program. /H = DEVICEHIGH behaviour.
rem try NOEMS first,
Hello,
>>I'll try DEVICEHIGH with EMM386.
>>didn't Tom implement a basic VDS option?
>>DEVICE=EMM386.EXE VDS
Even Lucho said UDMA need VDS, I simply use the DEVICE=EMM386.EXE
NOEMS it works fine.
It's more stable than FDDXMS+UMBPCI in my ALI Aladdin chipset, using
FDDXMS+UMBPCI sometimes UDMA cl
Luchezar Georgiev schreef:
I think that each OS has its own niche. Neiether Linux nor DOS can oust
each other. But try to fit a Linux in the BIOS flash ROM chip when you
have only several tens of kilobytes free there!
www.linuxbios.org
---
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:50:39 +0800, Johnson Lam wrote:
Though the driver may not bug free, but it bring the technology back to
DOS. Still have a lot of people including my friend think that DOS is
out, why not Linux?
I think that each OS has its own niche. Neiether Linux nor DOS can oust
each o
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:34:56 +0300, you wrote:
Hi Lucho,
>It's good to have so experienced programmers contribute to FreeDOS. One
>thing could prevent them from doing so though - the possibility of being
Though the driver may not bug free, but it bring the technology back
to DOS. Still have a
17 matches
Mail list logo
