Tough line to walk folks! You wanna clone DOS but yet you don't want
"to be tainted" by any suggestions you owe anything to DOS! Think
that over a little. Say it to yourself and see how it sounds.
It doesn't matter what the OS is for a lot of stuff. The Intel chips
and architecture are what th
I wasn't talking about 16 bit in general. Its that DOS is simply
structured and coded. the bits of code could count on being the only
thing active in RAM and the CPU when executing. No need to be polite
or "well behaved". There was a simple hierarchy of simple calls
directly to the hardware. Tim
Definitely. I'll add a warning that if you download and study the MS-DOS
source code, you should not contribute code to FreeDOS afterwards. We want
to avoid any suggestion that FreeDOS has been "tainted" by this proprietary
code.
(I've also included this warning in the "Microsoft releases source
an opensource dos is best
--
-chris
Computer Consultant & Repair Tech
Digitalatoll Solutions Group
Tawhaki Software
http://digitalatoll.com/
http://tawakisoft.com/
Cell: 916-612-6904
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, sparky4 wrote:
> read the licence and find out why!
> --
> with love,
> sparky
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, sparky4 wrote:
> read the licence and find out why!
This should ABSOLUTELY go without saying.
-uso.
--
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.
read the licence and find out why!
--
with love,
sparky4
Administrator of 四葉の芽◇ちゃんねる
--
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourcef
On 3/26/2014 2:23 AM, Charles Belhumeur wrote:
> You know, I just had a thought folks. Maybe FreeDOS should have been
> a 64 bit version right from the start. Why couldn't a 386 mode OS be
> written that looked and behaved like real mode DOS be written? You'd
> need some kind of low order shell t
> The point I'm making is DOS is a "duh" dumb as a stick OS.
Not true. Just because DOS is not multi-tasking or multi-threaded or doesn't
natively use protected mode doesn't make it "dumber" than mainstream OS's --
just different. In fact, it's vastly superior (aka "smarter") for certain
kind
You know, I just had a thought folks. Maybe FreeDOS should have been
a 64 bit version right from the start. Why couldn't a 386 mode OS be
written that looked and behaved like real mode DOS be written? You'd
need some kind of low order shell to have backward compatibility with
real mode stuff. but
Is there a reason you have to use that specific mouse hardware?
Or is this just hobby wanking to kill time and learn some stuff?
(I've done my share back in the day.)
I guess I should make this point for all the FreeDOS community.
This is kind of characteristic of DOS back in the old days. I've
FYI,
The MS-DOS 2.0 source code has been released, albiet under a
rather draconian license. See here for details:
http://www.computerhistory.org/_static/atchm/microsoft-ms-dos-early-source-code/
The download also includes MS-DOS 1.1 source code too.
JGH
---
11 matches
Mail list logo
