Hi,
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Charles Belhumeur
wrote:
>
> Thanks for filling me in folks. Its been 20 years or since I wrote and
> distributed freeware. My calculator has true floating point IO with 16
> digit base ten precision including decimal point when it appears in the 16
> count
Thanks for filling me in folks. Its been 20 years or since I wrote and
distributed freeware. My calculator has true floating point IO with 16
digit base ten precision including decimal point when it appears in the 16
count. I think the precision was higher in the actual internal calcs of
the com
Hi,
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Jim Michaels wrote:
>
> xp support will be phased out next year (2014).
Yes, in case you haven't noticed, they want everyone to upgrade.
> there is support in windows 7 "xp mode" (via a virtual machine called
> microsoft virtual pc) for win7ult.
Not meant f
ical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers.
>
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:05 PM
>Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS limits! and FDNPKG v0.93a released
>
>
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Charles Belhumeur
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm new to
ay, May 10, 2013 12:41 AM
>Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS limits! and FDNPKG v0.93a released
>
>
>
>did you know X was tabled in favor of something new? Wayland.
>also, read here for info on competitors.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#Competitors
>
>
>
gt;Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 9:57 AM
>Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS limits! and FDNPKG v0.93a released
>
>
>Hi, sorry for late reply,
>
>On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Charles Belhumeur
> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. Glad some of you see things
Hi,
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Charles Belhumeur
wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve!
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Steve Nickolas wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 8 May 2013, Charles Belhumeur wrote:
>>
>>> The other point... DOS had some notable shortcomings like no spell
>>> checker
>>> and no pocket c
Thanks Steve!
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Steve Nickolas wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013, Charles Belhumeur wrote:
>
> Oh wait I couple of points though. One fairly embarrassing, I made a
>> mistake on the size of the genome files. The big ones are in the range of
>> 300 to 600 MB not GB!
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Charles Belhumeur wrote:
Oh wait I couple of points though. One fairly embarrassing, I made a
mistake on the size of the genome files. The big ones are in the range of
300 to 600 MB not GB! So doable on 2 GB partition. The trouble is some
sources deliver them in Zip forma
I use a virtual studio, Poser. I push it and my hardware right to their
limits to generate high res files. I stuck with old fashioned methods not
using computers for serious work until recently. I mostly used a freeware
piece called Graphic Workshop since the early 1990s. It did a good job
with
Hi,
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Charles Belhumeur
wrote:
>
> I also had a career as a commercial artist and photographer back in the
> 1980s.
Did you use DOS (for such) back then? Mac? Neither?
FYI, sources for Photoshop 1.0.1 from 1991 were recently released for
non-commercial use (75% Pas
Thanks for the reply and considering my input. You offer good points to
consider.
I remember a DOS task switcher called Doors back in the day of BBS freeware
distribution. Never got around to trying it out.
I also had a career as a commercial artist and photographer back in the
1980s. Still d
Hi, sorry for late reply,
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Charles Belhumeur
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply. Glad some of you see things in a way similar to I.
> Remember the OS on the Amstrad Family Computer. I guess that's what I'd
> like to see for a user interface for FreeDos. Perhaps a l
On Wed, 1 May 2013, Charles Belhumeur wrote:
That sound great. Thanks. I'll check it out. I did look at K BASIC and
KDE BASIC on LINUX. Supposed to be backwards compatible with DOS's old
QBasic with a GUI IDE.. But damn, Ubuntu 12 is a big flaky monster. Didn't
like the feel of it. 8 was a
That sound great. Thanks. I'll check it out. I did look at K BASIC and
KDE BASIC on LINUX. Supposed to be backwards compatible with DOS's old
QBasic with a GUI IDE.. But damn, Ubuntu 12 is a big flaky monster.
Didn't like the feel of it. 8 was actually a pretty good OS but wankered
over now.
If you want flat memory model, and unlimited disk space, it sounds
like os/2 is what you want. It's a real shame IBM stopped supporting/
selling it. Wonder if we could get IBM to opensource it. Likely
not, but it's a nice idea.
As for windows, if you want to have flat memory models, and as
Thanks for the reply. Glad some of you see things in a way similar to I.
Remember the OS on the Amstrad Family Computer. I guess that's what I'd
like to see for a user interface for FreeDos. Perhaps a little more grown
up for modern Intel boxes. It was a small tidy GUI style OS. Task
switching
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Charles Belhumeur
wrote:
>
> I'm new to the whole FreeDos intitiative. If I might be allowed to add my
> two cents. I'm working on an application for bioinformatics research. The
> search for the best OS for this led me to FreeDos. Although I did end up o
Hi people:
I'm new to the whole FreeDos intitiative. If I might be allowed to add my
two cents. I'm working on an application for bioinformatics research. The
search for the best OS for this led me to FreeDos. Although I did end up
on picking Windows XP SP3 for the large user base and significa
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013, Rugxulo wrote:
> There is almost no practical way to avoid such things. Everything will
> be obsolete eventually (some sooner than others, even if still
> useful).
>
> What can we do? Roll our own BIOS? Fab our own 486 cpu clones? Or just
> live inside (buggy, hopefully soon-t
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013, Rugxulo wrote:
> I don't know if they're "hidden", just that usually they aren't
> directly exposed to users in default tools. You can still access the
> file with either name.
Yeah. Do a "dir /x" in Windows 7 and you'll see that it still makes 8.3
filenames.
> DVD image f
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Jim Michaels wrote:
>
> UEFI has plans to remove the BIOS+MBR API at some point when they consider
> it unneeded.
There is almost no practical way to avoid such things. Everything will
be obsolete eventually (some sooner than others, even if still
useful).
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Eric Auer wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
>> unfortunately, freedos doesn't support anything over 8GB
>
> Please explain. It supports up to 2 TB with LBA. Maybe you
> mean the size of individual files, limited to 2 or 4 GB.
IIRC, FreeDOS only supports file of approx. 2
dos-devel] FreeDOS limits! and FDNPKG v0.93a released
>
>
>
>Hi Jim,
>
>> unfortunately, freedos doesn't support anything over 8GB
>
>Please explain. It supports up to 2 TB with LBA. Maybe you
>mean the size of individual files, limited to 2 or 4 GB.
>
>> on x
Hi Jim,
> unfortunately, freedos doesn't support anything over 8GB
Please explain. It supports up to 2 TB with LBA. Maybe you
mean the size of individual files, limited to 2 or 4 GB.
> on x64 and maybe i386, even if support for BIOS should go away and
> only UEFI and x64 remains
You can use DO
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Jim Michaels wrote:
> I develop apps for freedos and things are on hold right now because I am
> waiting to see if djgpp will run in 64-bit cmd shell yet (x64 has no
> command.com so having a working compiler is critical for me on my windows
> box), but these are the kinds of
5B=1,000,000,000,000,000B=1PB]
>
> From: Ralf A. Quint
>To: Technical discussion and questions for FreeDOS developers.
>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS limits! and FDNPKG v0.93a released
>
>
>At 02:12 PM 2/20/2013,
FreeDOS developers.
>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] FreeDOS limits! and FDNPKG v0.93a released
>
>
>At 02:12 PM 2/20/2013, sparky4 wrote:
>>FreeDOS's mem program output only 4 GB of detected memory out of the
>>machine'
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:36 AM, escape wrote:
> On 22.02.13 03:22, Rugxulo wrote:
>
>> If you just want 64-bit support *and* DOS support (but not necessarily
>> in the same program, which would be hard, if not "almost" impossible),
>> your best bet would be DOSEMU (x64) or VirtualBox with la
On 22.02.13 03:22, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> If you just want 64-bit support *and* DOS support (but not necessarily
> in the same program, which would be hard, if not "almost" impossible),
> your best bet would be DOSEMU (x64) or VirtualBox with latest (Nehalem
> Westmere-ish) hardware cpu VT-X support
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Eric Auer wrote:
>
>> FreeDOS's mem program output only 4 GB of detected memory out of the
>> machine's total 16 GB Dose this mean FreeDOS can only detect 4GB
>> maximum?
For the record, I would take whatever MEM says with a healthy dose of
skepticism. I
Hi sparky,
(PS: Please decide on which of the 3 lists this should be discussed)
> FreeDOS's mem program output only 4 GB of detected memory out of the
> machine's total 16 GB Dose this mean FreeDOS can only detect 4GB
> maximum?
This is NOT related to the kernel: MEM only reports what EMS,
At 02:12 PM 2/20/2013, sparky4 wrote:
>FreeDOS's mem program output only 4 GB of detected memory out of the
>machine's total 16 GB Dose this mean FreeDOS can only detect 4GB
>maximum?
You are kidding, right?
>Also The df program is outdated and reporting incorrect sizes... it only
>detects
FreeDOS's mem program output only 4 GB of detected memory out of the
machine's total 16 GB Dose this mean FreeDOS can only detect 4GB
maximum?
Also The df program is outdated and reporting incorrect sizes... it only
detects a maximum of 2 GB disk space of a hard drive. I may just have an
outd
34 matches
Mail list logo
