Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Indeed, the package compilation has been available for two weeks now. You can find it here . I posted it to get everyone's feedback, so take a look and see if you find anything which should be removed or added. I'm fairly certain I didn't yet catch

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Before you get too involved with a 32 bit DOS-like operating system can you update us on your progress with FreeDOS 1.2? I thought you were working on that too. On Jun 17, 2015 11:07 AM, "Mercury Thirteen" wrote: > I think there's been sufficient time for everyone who is interested to > reply. B

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

I think there's been sufficient time for everyone who is interested to reply. Beginning Monday, talks will begin on a 32-bit DOS kernel. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Antony Gordon wrote: > Hi, > > I'd suggest using 0xC3 0x00 as a magic number for any non-8086 executable. > Or, for preference

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hi, > I'd suggest using 0xC3 0x00 as a magic number for any non-8086 executable. > Or, for preference, using a 4-byte magic number: 0xC3 0x00 0x00 followed by > a byte giving the supported CPU architecture. Then the logic in the loader > would be: > Here’s an easier solution. Follow the patter

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Antony Gordon wrote: Hi, It’s all semantics. Most signatures are MZ, but some old linkers (not sure if they are even in use) used ZM according to RBIL Values for the executable types understood by various environments: MZ old-style DOS executable (see #01594

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hi, It’s all semantics. Most signatures are MZ, but some old linkers (not sure if they are even in use) used ZM according to RBIL Values for the executable types understood by various environments: MZ old-style DOS executable (see #01594

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Antony Gordon wrote: > Hi, > > See my other email. In DOS, MZ=ZM, I guess Microsoft changed course at > some point. They are typically called MZ executables. I was specifically referring to the specific magic number that would show up as "ZM" in a text editor. All the files

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hi, See my other email. In DOS, MZ=ZM, I guess Microsoft changed course at some point. They are typically called MZ executables. > On Jun 8, 2015, at 8:55 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Antony Gordon wrote: > >> Hi >> >> >>> Do "ZM" EXEs actually exist? >>> >> >> Yes. A

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hi > > I'd suggest using 0xC3 0x00 as a magic number for any non-8086 executable. > Or, for preference, using a 4-byte magic number: 0xC3 0x00 0x00 followed by > a byte giving the supported CPU architecture. Then the logic in the loader > would be: > > 0xC3 0x00 0x00-> run as native EXE >

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

And I said MJ for Michael Jordan not Michael Jackson. On 09/06/2015 10:51 am, "Steve Nickolas" wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Antony Gordon wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > >> Do "ZM" EXEs actually exist? > >> > > > > Yes. Any 16-bit MS-DOS target compiler generates MZ executables. FreeDOS > is full of t

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Antony Gordon wrote: > Hi > > >> Do "ZM" EXEs actually exist? >> > > Yes. Any 16-bit MS-DOS target compiler generates MZ executables. FreeDOS is > full of them. I said ZM, not MZ. -uso. --

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hi > Do "ZM" EXEs actually exist? > Yes. Any 16-bit MS-DOS target compiler generates MZ executables. FreeDOS is full of them. > I've also been curious as to what the format is for .TOS binaries (since > GEMDOS has such a similar API to MS-DOS). > Grab one and run it through a hex editor.

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, John Elliott wrote: >> If you can mark the EXEs as something other than MZ, you could perhaps >> make a TSR loader stub that loads an x86 emulator on demand to run EXE >> files. >> >> COM... I think you're gonna be stuck with using only an EXE format because >> trying to detect

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

> If you can mark the EXEs as something other than MZ, you could perhaps > make a TSR loader stub that loads an x86 emulator on demand to run EXE > files. > > COM... I think you're gonna be stuck with using only an EXE format because > trying to detect a COM file by architecture is fraught with

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hi, > On Jun 5, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: > > A port of DOS to ARM would not be bound to any existing API and would not > need to be compatible with any existing DOS implementations, while still > being a port of DOS. > That’s technically incorrect. The reason that Linux (and U

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: >> >> A port of DOS to ARM would not be bound to any existing API and would not >> need to be compatible with any existing DOS implementations, while still >> being a port of DOS. > > I know this mi

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hi, On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: > > A port of DOS to ARM would not be bound to any existing API and would not > need to be compatible with any existing DOS implementations, while still > being a port of DOS. I know this might be stating the obvious, but you don't need a

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hey, > On Jun 5, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Chelson Aitcheson > wrote: > > Nothing is impossible if it was the case we would all still be using reel to > reel and tape decks lol. > > Lots of ideas and spit balling here but hey why not write it up and if people > wana contribute then they will if not

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Nothing is impossible if it was the case we would all still be using reel to reel and tape decks lol. Lots of ideas and spit balling here but hey why not write it up and if people wana contribute then they will if not keep using old trusty xt On 06/06/2015 8:39 am, "Steve Nickolas" wrote: > On S

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Chelson Aitcheson wrote: > Doesn't matter, Mac os power pc applications dont work on new Mac os but > it's still the same os. > (rosetta comparability layer aside) > > I see this as more of a chance for a new generation of dos. Freedos 1.x has > accomplished the needs for the e

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Low end *nix apps could be ported in place of over dos apps hell we could just make a Linux distro and slap a freedos sticker on it lol. Problem is there are two arguments here.. why and why not. If you build it they will come. If you don't then be happy carrying your xt's on your back. On 06/06/

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Doesn't matter, Mac os power pc applications dont work on new Mac os but it's still the same os. (rosetta comparability layer aside) I see this as more of a chance for a new generation of dos. Freedos 1.x has accomplished the needs for the existing replacement or clone requirements of a dos with e

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hi! > A port of DOS to ARM would not be bound to any existing API and would not > need to be compatible with any existing DOS implementations, while still > being a port of DOS. Well we already HAD a port to another CPU in the early times of FreeDOS: After all, it acts a bit like a library wit

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

A port of DOS to ARM would not be bound to any existing API and would not need to be compatible with any existing DOS implementations, while still being a port of DOS. -uso. -- __

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

I agree, a 32-bit kernel would open up worlds of possibilities for the DOS platform. Also, just to clarify, I wasn't asking anyone's permission, just probing to see what kind of interest there is out there. I used to follow DOSCore and Aura closely back in the day when I was working (off and on,

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

To see it on the arm architecture I think would be a good long term goal for a 32 bit kernel. Raspberry pi and other small arm boards are cheap and affordable and would breathe life into the dos platform. You don't need the freedos community approval or help as such for a project. Just do it. It

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

I am considering starting a test project to determine the feasibility of implementing a 32-bit FreeDOS kernel. If I decide to do so, who else is interested in contributing? Said contributors could assist in coding, help with testing, establish and evolve standards for the project, create documenta

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Chelson Aitcheson < chelson.aitche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Haha I got laughed at and criticized for these ideas. > +1 Just make it don't worry about the community. > +10 -- _

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Haha I got laughed at and criticized for these ideas. Just make it don't worry about the community. On 29/05/2015 6:47 am, "Antony Gordon" wrote: > I was re-reading some emails and I think I have an idea of how this would > work. > > The goal is existing compatibility so that older DOS applicati

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Eric, It’s involved, but so was writing an MS-DOS clone almost 17 years ago that is able to run 98% of all DOS software natively factoring in the quirks and undocumented and partially documented structures that had to be "clean room" implemented to avoid infringement. You and I were around fo

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hi Antony, if the goal is only to use Windows driver, then writing a clone of Windows is a high price. Plus it already has been paid, by the ReactOS project. Note that DOS windows in Windows often do not gain from Windows drivers: For example if your soundcard comes with a Windows driver, your DO

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Eric, It’s simple. Every piece of computer hardware comes with a Windows driver. Depending on the age of the device, you may have the older Windows drivers, or the newer Windows Driver Model driver. The reality is that to the major manufacturers of hardware, DOS is dead. No one is using a 16-bi

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hi Anthony, please explain in which way Windows WITHOUT a GUI would be something that we want to add to FreeDOS: There already are really good, free and open DPMI based DOS extenders for DOS. FreeDOS itself is not running in protected mode, but every EMM386 style software must use protected mode

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Eric, I only mentioned the Windows portion because it would tie in compatibility on the Microsoft side of things for classic software, not necessarily to re-invent Windows 3.x or Windows 9x. I'll try to elaborate more. If you strip the GUI from MS Windows, you have 3 important parts that run to

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

: "Antony Gordon" > To: "Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers." > > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:47 PM > Subject: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS > > > I was re-reading some emails and I think I have an idea of how this would > work.

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

On Friday, May 29, 2015, Eric Auer wrote: >FD32 runs more parts in 32-bit, but the advantages compared to using a >classic DOS together with a DPMI compatible DOS extender are minimal. Exactly. -- _

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Hi :-) > 1. Start FreeDOS (16-bit mode) 2. Start FreeDOS-32 via a separate > executable (it would only be installed if it detected a 32-bit > capable processor), perhaps call it FD32. It would switch to > protected mode and spawn a protected mode shell. http://freedos-32.sourceforge.net/ already

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

On Thu, 28 May 2015, Antony Gordon wrote: Here’s one possibility: 1. Start FreeDOS (16-bit mode) 2. Start FreeDOS-32 via a separate executable (it would only be installed if it detected a 32-bit capable processor), perhaps call it FD32. It would switch to protected mode and spawn a protected

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Here’s one possibility: 1. Start FreeDOS (16-bit mode) 2. Start FreeDOS-32 via a separate executable (it would only be installed if it detected a 32-bit capable processor), perhaps call it FD32. It would switch to protected mode and spawn a protected mode shell. The other possibility During the

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

My thought is: who shall do the development? There is no one around that would spend the time to develop this. - Original Message - From: "Antony Gordon" To: "Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers." Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:47 PM Subject

Re: [Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

Agreed, that was my exact line of thinking. However, the folks here seem to have come to the conclusion that FreeDOS will not evolve into the 32-bit realm. On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Antony Gordon wrote: > I was re-reading some emails and I think I have an idea of how this would > work. >

[Freedos-devel] 32-bit FreeDOS

I was re-reading some emails and I think I have an idea of how this would work. The goal is existing compatibility so that older DOS applications will run. Obviously, moving to 32-bit will eliminate most of the older processors, HOWEVER. by implementing a Windows 9x like model and build a 32-bi