I would think that only the utilities that need to use protected mode, a DOS
extender, or VCPI would be written using DJGPP or in 32-bit code...at the
moment, I can't really think of a utility that would...perhaps maybe a task
switcher written with a DOS extender that utilizes VCPI to multitask
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Imre Leber wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lyrical Nanoha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2006 02:28 PM
>> To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] djgpp
>>
>> Isn't there a stdio95.lib or something that's GPL
Hello Lyrical,
Lyrical Nanoha wrote:
>>> DR-DOS still works on an 8086.
>> I do appreciate your helpful suggestions, but at the same time you seem
>> to suggest that 8086 compatibility should not be a priority for FreeDOS.
> You read the opposite of what I intended to mean (see below).
Right, so
>-Original Message-
>From: Lyrical Nanoha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2006 02:28 PM
>To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] djgpp
>
>On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Johnson Lam wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:48:35 +, you wrote:
>>
>> Hi Im
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 12:36:21 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
Hi,
>Fully ACK! As PM apps tend to be much larger than their 8086 counterpart,
>FreeDOS would waste a lot of memory without a benefit.
In my humble opinion, the road is clear.
Keep the good old DOS traditional "external command" 8086 compatib
Hi all,
>> Which first, 8086 or 80386. If the program don't need to mess with
>> memory, why not keep it 8086 based?
>
> Fully ACK! As PM apps tend to be much larger than their 8086 counterpart,
> FreeDOS would waste a lot of memory without a benefit.
I would like to add that IMHO it is a bad mo
Салям!
1-Окт-2006 14:10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joris van Rantwijk) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
JvR> on 16-bit, just provide it as a target.) Some work has been done on a
JvR> 16-bit target for GCC;
Without support for "far" and "near" extensions/keywords, this work
(almost) us
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Joris van Rantwijk wrote:
> Lyrical Nanoha wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Joris van Rantwijk wrote:
>>> For me, a FreeDOS that does not properly run on a real PC is utterly
>>> useless.
>
>> DR-DOS still works on an 8086. ROM-DOS works on an 80186 (but not an
>> 8086). I thin
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Johnson Lam wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:48:35 +, you wrote:
>
> Hi Imre,
>
>> After having an extensive private chat with Eric. I was wondering what
>> the overall interest of the project would be to move the FreeDOS
>> utilities to a DJGPP based platform.
>
> Eric al
Lyrical Nanoha wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Joris van Rantwijk wrote:
>>For me, a FreeDOS that does not properly run on a real PC is utterly
>>useless.
> DR-DOS still works on an 8086. ROM-DOS works on an 80186 (but not an
> 8086). I think even RxDOS will run on an 8086, but its compatibility
Hi!
30-Сен-2006 21:54 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TG) wrote to
:
T> (386 is the baseline for LFN anyways, right),
Wrong.
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get
Johnson Lam wrote:
> Which first, 8086 or 80386. If the program don't need to mess with
> memory, why not keep it 8086 based?
Fully ACK! As PM apps tend to be much larger than their 8086 counterpart,
FreeDOS would waste a lot of memory without a benefit.
If someone wants a true PM OS, why would
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:03:12 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>DR-DOS still works on an 8086. ROM-DOS works on an 80186 (but not an
>8086). I think even RxDOS will run on an 8086, but its compatibility
>leaves much to be desired. If FreeDOS were to go 386-only... then someone
>might fork it to keep i
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:48:35 +, you wrote:
Hi Imre,
>After having an extensive private chat with Eric. I was wondering what the
>overall interest of the project would be to move the FreeDOS utilities to a
>DJGPP based platform.
Eric always have long talk, most of them useful but the talk
> Sometimes these concerns are waved away with the argument that pre-386
> systems are not used anymore except by hobbyists. My reply to that is
> that FreeDOS itself is not used by anybody except hobbyists. Kicking
> out everybody with old hardware and emulators sounds like a bad move.
No, please
>-Original Message-
>From: TG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2006 03:54 AM
>To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] djgpp
>
>Hmmm...lets see...
>
>FreeDOS compiled with DJGPP...
>
>The OS can boot the same way, the go32 extender can be add
> My reply to that is
>that FreeDOS itself is not used by anybody except hobbyists.
If you mean hobyists with a 8086 computer, then I'd have to say:
"Have you spent time on planet earth lately?"
Everybody, and I mean everybody, is talking about us right now (I have even
seen it come up in for
17 matches
Mail list logo
