On 1/5/2015 6:14 PM, Michael Brutman wrote:
> Bringing things back to reality:
>
> Options 1, 2, and 3 do not exist and are not likely to exist for a few
> years even after somebody actively starts working on them.
>
> Options 1 and 2 can not promise "100% compatibility with both DOS
> applicatio
Bringing things back to reality:
Options 1, 2, and 3 do not exist and are not likely to exist for a few
years even after somebody actively starts working on them.
Options 1 and 2 can not promise "100% compatibility with both DOS
applications and the full range of PC hardware" when they are not ev
Hello,Jim!Sorry about the lack of specifics,but I was doing other
things when I fired off the email.Anyway,how the multi-user system
works is mostly like this (I'm still developing it,so the finished
product won't be EXACTLY like this probably)
1.The user turns on the computer,which boots into Free
On january 4 Jim Hall said:
> "FreeDOS 1.2" should be an update/refresh from
>FreeDOS 1.1.
> No major changes. Improved installer is a good idea.
I must say I never used the installer, so I don't
know whether it can be improved.
> "FreeDOS 2.0" should be 16-bit. Make FreeDOS feel more
> m
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Mercury Thirteen
wrote:
>
> Thanks for that! I wasn't aware :)
I wasn't sure either, but apparently that's their bug, so we can't
really fix it.
> By the way.. how does one pronounce your name? I'm imagining something like
> "Rug-zoo-low"?
Roo-JEW-lo (red gu
Expounding a bit on all the options and variations which have been
presented in this 32- vs. 16-bit debate:
1 - Two separate kernels (one 16-bit and one 32-bit) with a mechanism which
auto-detects what CPU it's running on and launches the appropriate kernel
automatically. Maintains 100% hardware a
+1 100%
"I'm traveling, and likely won't be able to check email again or update
the
roadmap on the wiki until Wednesday. With a few disagreements, it looks
like the consensus remains this:
*- "FreeDOS 1.2" should be an update/refresh from FreeDOS 1.1. No major
changes. Improved installer is a go
Thanks for that! I wasn't aware :)
By the way.. how does one pronounce your name? I'm imagining something like
"Rug-zoo-low"?
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Mercury Thirteen
> wrote:
> >
> > Jim, I think I broke the link you posted in
+1
On Jan 4, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Jim Hall wrote:
> I'm traveling, and likely won't be able to check email again or update the
> roadmap on the wiki until Wednesday. With a few disagreements, it looks
> like the consensus remains this:
>
>
> *- "FreeDOS 1.2" should be an update/refresh from FreeDO
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Mercury Thirteen
wrote:
>
> Jim, I think I broke the link you posted in the News section of FreeDOS.org.
> Per your suggestion the archive is now called drives11.zip.
FYI, this appears to be a quirk (bug) of SourceForge. It doesn't
update the news properly onc
Nobody says you gotta run a 32-bit version of dos on a system that isn't
32-bit. What's wrong with just leaving the version that's already running
there, and just use the 32-bit version on 386+ machines. Nobody said the
current version would disappear just because a 32-bit version shows up.
St
On Monday, January 5, 2015, Rugxulo wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> One tool in particular, which maybe you forgot about, not that I ever
> tested it, is Blair's old port of *nix "Dialog":
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/freedos/mailman/message/21584451/
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/ut
Hi, Jim,
I haven't read the other thread yet, so I'm not sure what you've done so far.
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jim Hall wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
>>
>> P.S. You might do better with TxWin (LGPL, C), which does explicitly
>> support DOS via OW: http://tr
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 7:59 PM, JAYDEN CHARBONNEAU
wrote:
>
> Hello,everyone!I am creating a new security feature for the new
> distribution.It is a password lockout,and can only be unlocked by the
> same computer.(Meaning that you cant unlock it on another
> computer).
For comparison, I jus
Hi
Or let te user to decide to load the 32bit/i386 driver or not. The
marketting question is: why is it more than a new, yet another extender.
If decided not to load, it is 100 backward compatible both from hw and sw
point of view.
Br, Tibi
--
+1 +1 +1 :)
However...
I just wanted to point out that - if my grasp on technology is adequate -
going 32-bit need not break either hardware or software compatibility,
since the kernel could detect which CPU on which it is running and either
shift into protected mode or stay in real mode accordin
Hi, Florian!
I totally agree, but the only problem is that Japheth seems to be gone. :(
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:04 AM, Florian Xaver wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I want to add my thoughts to Tom’s e-mail: I think that the first step to
> a 32-bit version of FreeDOS has already be done!
>
> It’s calle
Hi all!
I want to add my thoughts to Tom’s e-mail: I think that the first step to a
32-bit version of FreeDOS has already be done!
It’s called JEMM and HX DOS Extender
(http://web.archive.org/web/20140905021040/http://www.japheth.de/)
You can even run some Windows programs.
Using mo
18 matches
Mail list logo
