Have two kernels a 16/32bit for legacy cpus and a 64bit kernel that can use
4gb+ addressing of the ram.
--
-Chris Evans
Computer Consultant, Systems Administrator, Programmer, PC technician
Digitalatoll Solutions Group (Tawhaki Software)
Cell. : 916-612-6904 | http://www.tawhakisoft.slyip.net/
Hello Jim and all,
I like the idea of having two releases of FreeDOS with different goals: a
FreeDOS 1.2 as an update of current FreeDOS 1.1, in order to have something
on a short term as an update of current distribution.
As for FreeDOS 2.0, I share my ideas here. I agree that it should be a
Hello!
Notes below.
BTW, Whatever happened to Japheth's pages?? Is server down? (see JEMM's
LSM for URL's).
Aitor
2015-01-01 19:31 GMT+01:00 Mercury Thirteen mercury0x0...@gmail.com:
1 - I like the idea of being able to run apps for multiple other OSes, but
I think that ability should fall
I too would love to see a fully modern DOS.
My thoughts for features added in FreeDOS 2.0: The processor is shifted
into (and stays in, at least as much as possible) protected mode, providing
32-bit addressing. Memory therefore would become a flat 4GB RAM address
space, allowing for advanced
Hi, Aitor :)
Just touching on some of your ideas:
1 - I like the idea of being able to run apps for multiple other OSes, but
I think that ability should fall to a program running atop FreeDOS, not to
the FreeDOS kernel itself. That would be a very cool feature, but the
amount of code needed to
You can also buy a copy at MacMall for $2 [0].
[0]
http://www.macmall.com/p/HP-Operating-Systems/product~dpno~13045035~pdp.igfhgha
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Michael Brutman mbbrut...@brutman.com
wrote:
Somebody should talk to HP and see what FreeDOS 2.0 includes. They are
already
One thing I'd like to see in the next FreeDOS is a better installer.
Installer should be writable to a USB stick or be bootable and runnable from a
disk image; there is a rather outdated FreeDOS runnable quasi-floppy image on
the System Rescue CD, though this image has no installer.
I would
If you take a look one of the links from Jim recently he states:
But in an alternate reality, what would DOS had looked like if Microsoft
hadn't moved to Windows? I think we get to define what that looks like.
Think for a second about what Microsoft, or any company would have done to
continue
Not that I all of a sudden want to jump the bandwagon, but is he planning on
hiring current/past FreeDOS developers at least?
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Jim Hall jh...@freedos.org
Aan: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Verzonden: Woensdag 31 december 2014 17:12:57
Onderwerp:
It seems clear a consensus is appearing, but I'll give folks another few
days to chime in. That will give me time to continue on website cleanup
things, anyway. :-)
*What I think I'm hearing: (and I agree)*
*- FreeDOS 1.2 should be an update/refresh from FreeDOS 1.1. No major
changes. Improved
On Thu, 1 Jan 2015, Mercury Thirteen wrote:
Speaking of multiple kernels, would it be acceptable to require a minimum
hardware platform for a new version of FreeDOS? Could we exclude the
pre-386 crowd without backlash? Personally, I think that's acceptable and
I'm sure Microsoft would've no
Speaking of multiple kernels, would it be acceptable to require a minimum
hardware platform for a new version of FreeDOS? Could we exclude the
pre-386 crowd without backlash? Personally, I think that's acceptable and
I'm sure Microsoft would've no doubt done the same thing by now had they
not gone
Just to put in my own two cents.
The lastest happening thing is all about open source hardware. Open source
operating systems are so 2000.
Intel has recently released a number of x86 based boards. With a simple
operating system like DOS you could do all sorts of hardware things directly,
13 matches
Mail list logo
