It will provide all the typical features of the base shell, including the
following new features:
-The new "drives" command displays what drive letters are available in the
environment and details on each.
-A selection of four separate shells running concurrently which can be
switched between usi
> but for a simple shell it would just be too time consuming,
> especially since I want to get a useable product out fairly
> quickly.
I don't see yet how your 'simple shell' would enhance FreeDOS.
what parts does it better then FreeCOM in what specific way?
Tom
-
Nice timing! lol
Seriously, though, I'm starting to see what you point out. I got all of my
code running in FB and it did great - quite impressive, really. However
anything which depends on real mode assembly or interrupt calling will just
take too long to get running properly so I think I'll have
Network drivers in the DOS world aren't quite like other DOS drivers.
Normally you only need one .exe to do the job, but with networking you will
need a few files: a packet driver for the hardware itself and, depending on
what protocol your software expects, maybe a TCP stack as well. The packet
dr
I am trying to create a central mainframe using my data files.I have a
windows 7 computer and a laptop with Freedos on it.I was wondering if
it is possible to send instructions between the two computers.Is there
a specific program or driver I need for freedos?
-
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:07 AM, Mercury Thirteen
wrote:
>
> Nevermind... figured it out. The IDE set the default language to QB
> compatibility. Duh.
Great, just after replying, now I see this new message. ;-)
But seriously, this isn't for the faint of heart. You're probably not
going to
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Mercury Thirteen
wrote:
>
> Can anyone can shed some light on why I'm getting these build errors? My
> syntax is exactly as it should be from the demos and examples I've seen,
> I've even tried a half dozen different ways to express the routine. I have
> no id
