How is using the Virtual 8086 mode any different than what OS/2 2.x
provided? It too ran 16 bit DOS and DOS applications in Virtual 8086 mode,
making OS/2 serve as the supervisor layer.
The advantage would be that you would be able to run several DOS programs
on a single machine at once. Each DO
Thank you! lol
I'll have to give that all a look over. :)
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This might be longer than necessary, but I figured I may as well dump
> it all on ya, just to be complete!
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Mercury Thirteen
> wrote:
> >
> > Th
So, to summarize what I'm hearing, FreeDOS 2.0 could be made to detect the
CPU on which its running and branch accordingly. If it was a 386 or better,
we enter protected mode and use a V86 monitor to spawn multiple 16-bit app
spaces using the chip's built-in virtualization hardware. If it's a 286 o
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Travis Siegel wrote:
>
> Actually, opendos version 7.01 (or caldera dos depending on when you
> purchased it)
> did have multitasking, and it worked fairly well. The problem was, setting
> it up and
> getting it to run properly was a bear. I did finally ac
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Jim Hall wrote:
>
> Yes, these are off-limits.
>
> 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.
In fairnes
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Andy Stamp wrote:
>
> My wording of that was poor. I was confident that reading leaked DOS source
> was bad, I wanted to make sure that the IBM XT reference manual (containing
> the 5150 ROM BIOS listing) and Undocumented DOS were okay.
That old BIOS is prob
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Jim Hall wrote:
>
> Has anyone out there gotten TVision to work using OpenWatcom C?
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/devel/libs/tvision/
>
>
> I haven't used TVision before, but I thought it would be good to use these
> libraries in t
Has anyone out there gotten TVision to work using OpenWatcom C?
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/devel/libs/tvision/
I haven't used TVision before, but I thought it would be good to use these
libraries in the updated installer. I'm having a lot of problems getting it
to co
Hello,
2015-01-03 19:14 GMT+01:00 Travis Siegel :
>
> On Jan 1, 2015, at 3:46 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote:
>
> > I too would love to see a fully modern DOS.
>
> As would I, and I believe everything mentioned in the email would be
> perfect for a 32-bit dos. I believe it can be done, and the whole
Hello,
2015-01-03 19:00 GMT+01:00 Mercury Thirteen :
> As far as I have seen, DOS allocates one Program Segment Prefix and runs
> an app in that segment. When you exit the program, it clears that app out
> then loads the next one you run in the same segment. I don't think it would
> be that hard
Old hardware has 16 bit registers. Requiring opcodes that only 386+
systems have an using the extra registers, or assuming that registers
contain 32 bits means that no 8088 class or 80286 class system will run.
That is a big conflict.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Travis Siegel wrote:
>
>
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015, Travis Siegel wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Michael Brutman wrote:
>> People are free to fork off and make a new project based on FreeDOS. No
>> problem there. But once you break compatibility with existing
>> applications, you lose a lot of your potential user base.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Mercury Thirteen
wrote:
>
> We in this discussion aren't the first people to question how to
> successfully meld the worlds of 32- and 16-bit code while having speed,
> flexibility and compatibility. This became an issue way back in the days of
> the 386, and so so
On Jan 2, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Michael Brutman wrote:
> People are free to fork off and make a new project based on FreeDOS. No
> problem there. But once you break compatibility with existing
> applications, you lose a lot of your potential user base. And as soon as
> you go to 32 bits, you lose a
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Travis Siegel wrote:
>
> I think primarily, your summary hit the nail on the head, with the caveat
> that if a 32-bit dos could be built that still maintained the backward
> compatibility for those programs that needed it, it would *not* be a bad
> thing, in fact,
On Jan 1, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Dave Pratt wrote:
> Are there other benefits you see to the 32 bit DOS?
A 32-bit dos would break the 640K barrier permanently for one thing.
For another, multitasking would not only be possible, it would probably become
the norm.
I know I'm not the only one who woul
Yes, that's exactly what I meant in my emails. Microsoft would've
eventually (in my educated guesses, at least) made MS-DOS enter protected
mode as early as possible (as any modern OS does) then spawned multiple
apps in their own memory areas using VM86. This would basically make the
kernel the V86
On Jan 1, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Jim Hall wrote:
> 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. :-)
I think primarily, your summary hit the nail on the head, with the caveat that
i
On Jan 1, 2015, at 3:46 AM, Mercury Thirteen wrote:
> I too would love to see a fully modern DOS.
As would I, and I believe everything mentioned in the email would be perfect
for a 32-bit dos. I believe it can be done, and the whole give each program
it's own virtual 86 machine is one I've wo
As far as I have seen, DOS allocates one Program Segment Prefix and runs an
app in that segment. When you exit the program, it clears that app out then
loads the next one you run in the same segment. I don't think it would be
that hard to make it allocate an additional PSP every time a new app is
l
Actually, opendos version 7.01 (or caldera dos depending on when you purchased
it) did have multitasking, and it worked fairly well. The problem was, setting
it up and getting it to run properly was a bear. I did finally accomplish it,
but it was a tough nut to crack, and I didn't use it long,
Actually, if it could be rolled in, I believe the vmix32 project would be an
excellent 32-bit dos multitasking solution. I ran vmix when it was version
2.67, and it not only worked, (in my case) it worked too well. I had multiple
programs running, and because of the method vmix used to virtual
My wording of that was poor. I was confident that reading leaked DOS
source was bad, I wanted to make sure that the IBM XT reference manual
(containing the 5150 ROM BIOS listing) and Undocumented DOS were okay.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jim Hall wrote:
>
>
>> > Obviously reading leak MS/
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I thought of that, a 32-bit version of FreeDOS could take ideas/features
> from OS/2 and eComStation.
>
> I saw OS/2 as like a much-enhanced 32-bit DOS.
Yeah. And if I were to try to create a 32-bit DOS, it might be something
like OS/2 without Presen
from Sparky4:
> I think the FreeDOS 2.0 version should be a updated 16 bit kernel that can
> run in real mode by default
> and the freedos-32 stuff should merge with OSFree
I thought of that, a 32-bit version of FreeDOS could take ideas/features from
OS/2 and eComStation.
I saw OS/2 as like a
> > Obviously reading leak MS/DR-DOS source code is bad, but I want to
> > make sure.
> >
> Those are of course off-limits. (Well, a bit questionable in case of
> DR-DOS, I don't know what exactly the license said when it was briefly
> available as OpenDOS)
>
>
Yes, these are off-limits.
If you do
26 matches
Mail list logo
