Hi Robert,
>>> But there are many good (and free)
>>> text editors available for DOS that can edit large text.
>>
>> True enough. and people have had time enough (it's 2022) to select one
> Not everbody is with DOS since the 1980s. There are still DOS newbies
> around from time to time.
welcome.
Hallo Herr Paul Dufresne via Freedos-devel,
am Donnerstag, 25. August 2022 um 15:41 schrieben Sie:
>
>>it's still beyond my understanding why you don't want to edit small
>>files with edit32
>>
>> Tom
> Well, because the full idea is more like:
> If file < 64k
> then edit.exe the file
els
Hi tom,
>> But there are many good (and free)
>> text editors available for DOS that can edit large text.
>
> True enough. and people have had time enough (it's 2022) to select one
Not everbody is with DOS since the 1980s. There are still DOS newbies
around from time to time.
> but none of them
Hi Eric,
> for example SETEDIT is 32-bit and can edit large files,
> but maybe we should explicitly tell WHICH editors are
> 32-bit. To be honest, I do not know for several others.
At minimum these are 32-bit:
BLOCEK
EMACS
FED
MINED
VIM
Cheers,
Robert
--
BTTR Software https://www.bttr-softwa
Hi Paul,
> One of my reflex when going to Games\Vertigo was "edit vertigo.txt" to read
> the file.
> It say the file is too big for this version of edit.
> "edlin vertigo.txt" worked... as "less vertigo.txt"... I think the file was
> 79k... not sure at all...
> but I am kind of surprised that ed
Hi Paul,
> I know some packages use "Links" to make executables in the
> executable %PATH% to make them callable from any directory.
You're probably talking about the BAT and COM files in C:\FreeDOS\LINKS.
> The question I ask myslf, is why is is the exception rather than the norm?
Because prob
For what it's worth:
I have a 286 I still use. A 286 is enough for the Win95 version of
EDIT.COM (it uses some 186 opcodes), so that's usually what I go with.
It's still important to *me* to be able to support 8086 and 286 PCs. But
with that said, I've felt that that's best done by me codin
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 16:43:41 +0200
tom ehlert wrote:
> if you own an XT, you have probably become used to an editor for the
> last 30 years on it. I don't see the point chosing another one.
>
> Tom
There are new XTs being sold (https://monotech.fwscart.com) and it's
kind of a trend these days fo
> On Aug 25, 2022, at 4:10 AM, Eric Auer wrote:
> [..]
>> It seems there is a lot of programs that cannot run on 8086...
>
> Those should be excluded in 8086 installs, but as far as
> I remember, at least one of the installers already pays
> attention to that. Mateusz and Jerome might know mor
> Besides the 64k limit, FreeDOS Edit is horrible to use on an XT.
> Compared to norton editor or edit.com, the drawing of the interface
> is so slow you can see it happening.
if you own an XT, you have probably become used to an editor for the last 30
years on it. I don't see the point chosing
At first I thought that edit was
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/repositories/unstable/pkg-html/msedit.html
and realized it was a 32 bit program, written entirely in FreeBASIC.
I did not tried it... just thinking maybe on a 386+ system, we could use it...
and keep the
>it's still beyond my understanding why you don't want to edit small
>files with edit32
>
> Tom
Well, because the full idea is more like:
If file < 64k
then edit.exe the file
else (file > 64k)
if processor 386+
edit32 the file
else
error "sorry, file to big!"
endif
enfif
So t
> But there are many good (and free)
> text editors available for DOS that can edit large text.
True enough. and people have had time enough (it's 2022) to select one
of them that suits their needs. and there are multiple (of varying
taste and quality) in FreeDOS and elsewhere.
but none of them c
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 03:41:30 -0400
Paul Dufresne via Freedos-devel
wrote:
> While thinking about 64k limit for edit... I come to think about 16
> bits and 32 bits programs...
>
> Why there is no two separate versions of FreeDOS, one for 16 bits
> CPUs (8086) and one for 32 bits CPU (386+)?
>
>
Hi,
On 25 Aug 2022, at 13:50, Bitácora de Javier Gutiérrez Chamorro wrote:
> I do not think it will be that easy. It is probably hitting the 16 unsigned
> int range, and also accounting that large memory model only allows to
> allocate blocks of up to 64K (you are looking for huge).
yes, or it
I do not think it will be that easy. It is probably hitting the 16 unsigned int
range, and also accounting that large memory model only allows to allocate
blocks of up to 64K (you are looking for huge).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Remitente:
Hi,
On 25 Aug 2022, at 9:41, Paul Dufresne via Freedos-devel wrote:
> While thinking about 64k limit for edit... I come to think about 16 bits and
> 32 bits programs...
>
the 64kb limit is an artificial limit in the source code of the "edit" tool:
https://gitlab.com/FreeDOS/base/edit-freedos/-
> Would it be possible to have edit.exe for 64k less files...
> edit32.exe for bigger files...
absolutely yes. just copy setedit.exe to edit32.exe. done.
> and edit.bat that would check fif the
> requested file to edit is bigger than 64k and then call edit32 on
> the file, else edit.exe on the
Hi,
On 25 Aug 2022, at 11:07, Paul Dufresne via Freedos-devel wrote:
> Would it be possible to have edit.exe for 64k less files... edit32.exe for
> bigger files... and edit.bat that would check fif the requested file to edit
> is bigger than 64k and then call edit32 on the file, else edit.exe o
Would it be possible to have edit.exe for 64k less files... edit32.exe for
bigger files... and edit.bat that would check fif the requested file to edit is
bigger than 64k and then call edit32 on the file, else edit.exe on the file?___
Freedos-devel mail
Checking 1st sector signature will probably not work (because FDISK probably
create a valid signature even if no MBR present.
So I guess the correct way is to overwrite by default the MBR... so don't make
if frightening to the user.
I would so propose:
"Install MBR (that allows booting)? (Yes/n
Le jeu., 25 août 2022 04:10:17 -0400 Eric Auer a écrit
> That is not necessary - you mentioned a 32-bit version
> of some text editor, which already IS included :-) See
>
> http://freedos.org/software/ ==>
>
> https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distrib
Hi Paul,
While thinking about 64k limit for edit... I come to think about 16 bits and 32
bits programs...
Why there is no two separate versions of FreeDOS, one for 16 bits CPUs (8086)
and one for 32 bits CPU (386+)?
That is not necessary - you mentioned a 32-bit version
of some text editor
Hello Paul,
On 25 Aug 2022, at 9:41, Paul Dufresne via Freedos-devel wrote:
> While thinking about 64k limit for edit... I come to think about 16 bits and
> 32 bits programs...
>
> Why there is no two separate versions of FreeDOS, one for 16 bits CPUs (8086)
> and one for 32 bits CPU (386+)?
>
While thinking about 64k limit for edit... I come to think about 16 bits and 32
bits programs...
Why there is no two separate versions of FreeDOS, one for 16 bits CPUs (8086)
and one for 32 bits CPU (386+)?
It seems there is a lot of programs that cannot run on 8086... and others that
could ta
El mié., 24 ago. 2022 21:37, Jim Hall escribió:
If you're up for it, I think this would be a *great* article to write
> for the wiki. If you don't have a FreeDOS wiki account, let me know
> and I can make an account for you.
>
Hi Jim,
An article for the wiki sounds good. I'm now busy with the n
26 matches
Mail list logo