On 01/04/2013 10:27 AM, john s wolter wrote:
> It's the clock, just the clock. It's a square wave usually, the old up
> and down. Pin 19, CLK, on the Intel 8086 DIP
>
> When emulating the speed of a 8088, 8086, 80286,... CPUs you need to
> emulate the Clock cycles
>
> -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
On 01/04/2013 04:13 AM, dmccunney wrote:
> ...
> "Real time" simply means "guaranteed to respond to an external event
> within a specified period". What time period is required?
>
I have been able to guarantee millisecond resolution of events to
measure the subtle effects on human performance of
It's the clock, just the clock. It's a square wave usually, the old up and
down. Pin 19, CLK, on the Intel 8086 DIP
When emulating the speed of a 8088, 8086, 80286,... CPUs you need to
emulate the Clock cycles
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_...etc...
So sticking in NOPs may not work.
There should also be made a distinction between real time input and real
time output and servo loop. If you are capturing timing events you really
only need to respond to an event and store a time for later processing. I
usually use a microcontroller and write a routine around its interrupts so
tha
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Jim Lemon wrote:
> On 01/03/2013 12:57 PM, dmccunney wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Jim Lemon wrote:
>>
>>> If there was a Linux kernel in which the user could turn off everything that
>>> isn't in DOS, that would be a way out.
>>
>> If you could turn of
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Michael Robinson
wrote:
>
> Dos makes sense for 8/16 bit computers that can't handle multitasking
> very well.
[MS-based] "DOS" is exclusively 16-bit, it won't work on 8-bit at all
(at least not in "traditional" sense or any reasonable variant that I
know of).
Actually I use DOS because I use an antique office package "Open Access
IV". It works for me, does it's job very nicely and has survived nearly 25
years without a virus etc. I can write a program using the word processor,
database and language calls in a quarter of the time it would take on other
p
On 01/03/2013 12:57 PM, dmccunney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Jim Lemon wrote:
>
>> If there was a Linux kernel in which the user could turn off everything that
>> isn't in DOS, that would be a way out.
>
> If you could turn off everything that *isn't* in DOS, you might have
> fun run
Dos makes sense for 8/16 bit computers that can't handle multitasking
very well. There are plenty of 8/16 bit computers around still, think
e-readers probably and other embedded devices that don't need the
higher functionality a 32/64 bit machine/multi core machine offers.
Dos was a quick and d
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Jim Lemon wrote:
> If there was a Linux kernel in which the user could turn off everything that
> isn't in DOS, that would be a way out.
If you could turn off everything that *isn't* in DOS, you might have
fun running the Linux kernel. You run DOS in an emulator
On 01/03/2013 07:52 AM, Aitor Santamaría wrote:
> ...
> Now I wonder myself if any of these two variants will dominate in the
> future, or if there will be a third different approach to the future of DOS.
For those of us who use DOS for its simpleminded "I do what I'm told and
that's all I do" fu
yawn Againfor 2013
/yôn/
Verb
Involuntarily open one's mouth wide and inhale deeply due to tiredness or
boredom.
Noun
A reflex act of opening one's mouth wide and inhaling deeply due to
tiredness or boredom.
.
FreeDOS has a great future. It does not have to depend on act
A yearly classic! :)
Well, I'm late, but by that time I'm sure that the question would
eventually arise again. I give my 2 c
I have been giving a thought about this for a while, and I think that part
of the problem is that is to be understood by DOS. I have two approaches
for the question:
* If b
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:45 PM, BretJ wrote:
> If you could boot up in only a few seconds, would you turn things off when
> you weren't using them (not necessarily servers, but clients)?
Nope. I run multitasking environments with things happening in the
background, and things scheduled to happ
If you could boot up in only a few seconds, would you turn things off when
you weren't using them (not necessarily servers, but clients)?
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Long-term-survival-of-FreeDOS-tp33661875p33684868.html
Sent from the FreeDOS - User mailing list archiv
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Bret Johnson wrote:
>> Yes, they do. But my fundamental question is still valid. What is
>> your use case? Do you actually *need* to boot DOS, or is a VM or
>> emulator a better solution?
>
> In my case, I do it mostly for speed, but there are other reasons also
> Yes, they do. But my fundamental question is still valid. What is
> your use case? Do you actually *need* to boot DOS, or is a VM or
> emulator a better solution?
In my case, I do it mostly for speed, but there are other reasons also.
Booting "real" DOS only takes a few seconds. So, if I'm
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:04 AM, escape wrote:
> On 12.04.12 20:38, dmccunney wrote:
>> I just made a post amending my statement.
> Ok, but still it has nothing common with DOS itself. Because:
>
>> I amend my statement: they'll boot DOS if you jump through an
>> assortment of hoops to get them to
On 12.04.12 20:38, dmccunney wrote:
> I just made a post amending my statement.
Ok, but still it has nothing common with DOS itself. Because:
> I amend my statement: they'll boot DOS if you jump through an
> assortment of hoops to get them to do so. I got FreeDOS to boot
> alongside Win2K and tw
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:23 PM, escape wrote:
> On 11.04.12 22:23, dmccunney wrote:
>> Current machines won't *boot* DOS, but will *run* it in a
>> compatibility box, emulator or virtual machine.
>
> I'm think you're making a bit misleading statement. While there *are*
> current machines that w
On 11.04.12 22:23, dmccunney wrote:
> Current machines won't *boot* DOS, but will *run* it in a
> compatibility box, emulator or virtual machine.
I'm think you're making a bit misleading statement. While there *are*
current machines that won't boot DOS, 99% of the *current* machines can
boot it.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote:
>
> 11. April 2012 um 21:23, dmccunney wrote
>
>> Current machines won't *boot* DOS, but will *run* it in a
>> compatibility box, emulator or virtual machine.
>
> I wonder what you are talking about.
>
> current machines *do* boot DOS, and mosty
On 04/12/2012 06:54 AM, dmccunney wrote:
> ...
> the question becomes "Why do you *need* to do this?"
>
> The answer is that generally, you *don't*. Current hardware is
> increasingly faster and more powerful. In the old days you talked
> directly to the hardware to squeeze the maximum performanc
11. April 2012 um 21:23, dmccunney wrote
> Current machines won't *boot* DOS, but will *run* it in a
> compatibility box, emulator or virtual machine.
I wonder what you are talking about.
current machines *do* boot DOS, and mosty likely will continue to do
so for the foreseeable future.
> If
On 4/11/2012 2:34 PM, Alex wrote:
> Sorry but I still don't find the above comments very reassuring, with
> regard to the future usability of (Free)DOS on new hardware. The fact
> that we will be able to run DOS in emulators/virtual machines, because
> we can no longer boot it, is no reason at all
On 4/11/2012 1:38 PM, John Wesley Cooper wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 6:14 AM, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
>> As an end user, your fears are probably foolish. Emulation and
>> virtualization work fine
>> for anybody playing with DOS at the application level.
> Application-level? But doesn't DOS more or l
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Alex wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:54 PM, dmccunney wrote:
>> *That* purpose has been unnecessary for decades. Running in a VM or
>> emulator still lets you *run* DOS and legacy DOS apps, which is all
>> you are likely to really *need* to do.
>
> I beg to
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:54 PM, dmccunney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Alex wrote:
>> Sorry but I still don't find the above comments very reassuring, with
>> regard to the future usability of (Free)DOS on new hardware. The fact
>> that we will be able to run DOS in emulators/virtu
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Alex wrote:
> Sorry but I still don't find the above comments very reassuring, with
> regard to the future usability of (Free)DOS on new hardware. The fact
> that we will be able to run DOS in emulators/virtual machines, because
> we can no longer boot it, is no re
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 02:11 -0700, Jack wrote:
> Intel has its guns aimed against SATA, as well, in favor of AHCI
AHCI is a standardised programming method that can be used on different
chipsets that adhere to the AHCI standard.
SATA is the bus where data is transferred to/from disks.
--
Tacti
Sorry but I still don't find the above comments very reassuring, with
regard to the future usability of (Free)DOS on new hardware. The fact
that we will be able to run DOS in emulators/virtual machines, because
we can no longer boot it, is no reason at all for being reassured. In
fact, such a state
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Alex wrote:
> This topic is not about DOS vs other operating systems, or the fact
> that users tend to gradually abandon DOS. It's about the survivability
> of DOS vis-a-vis hardware.
> The starting point for my reasoning is: what will happen with the
> future d
On 4/11/2012 6:14 AM, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
>As an end user, your fears are probably foolish. Emulation and virtualization
>work fine
>for anybody playing with DOS at the application level.
Application-level? But doesn't DOS more or less give an application (nearly)
unfettered access to th
On 4/11/2012 5:21 AM, Alex wrote:
> This is exactly the sort of nightmarish scenario I was worrying about!!
> I was hoping that someone would point out how foolish my worries were,
> but now they appear to be not so foolish after all...
>
As an end user, your fears are probably foolish. Emulation
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Jim Lemon wrote:
> I have been battling with this for some years, and my colleagues have
> to scavenge for old PCs that will run DOS natively.
This is exactly the sort of nightmarish scenario I was worrying about!!
I was hoping that someone would point out how f
Ralf,
Apologies for my previous "reply", which was not a reply, only my having
hit Opera's "send" button by error!
>> Cannot answer on all subjects, but re: disk/CD/DVD drivers, I am NOT
>> overly optimistic! Intel/Microsoft want us all to "buy into" AHCI,
>> and they may have started "orderin
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:16:50 -0700, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 01:13 PM 4/10/2012, Jack wrote:
>> Cannot answer on all subjects, but re: disk/CD/DVD drivers, I am NOT
>> overly optimistic! Intel/Microsoft want us all to "buy into" AHCI,
>> and they may have started "ordering" mainboard vendors t
On 04/11/2012 12:37 AM, Alex wrote:
> Hi
>
> This topic is not about DOS vs other operating systems, or the fact
> that users tend to gradually abandon DOS. It's about the survivability
> of DOS vis-a-vis hardware.
> The starting point for my reasoning is: what will happen with the
> future develop
At 01:13 PM 4/10/2012, Jack wrote:
>Cannot answer on all subjects, but re: disk/CD/DVD drivers, I am NOT
>overly optimistic! Intel/Microsoft want us all to "buy into" AHCI,
>and they may have started "ordering" mainboard vendors to omit SATA/
>IDE logic from their BIOS routines.
Do you have a so
> This topic is not about DOS vs other operating systems, or the fact
> that users tend to gradually abandon DOS. It's about the survivability
> of DOS vis-a-vis hardware ... What will happen with future development
> of the hardware architectures?
Cannot answer on all subjects, but re: disk/CD/DV
if the hardware chokes on real programming,
someone will make an emulator.
good!
.
eufdp...@yahoo.com
eufdp...@yahoo.com
eufdp...@yahoo.com
eufdp...@yahoo.com
eufdp...@yahoo.com
El 10/04/2012 10:07 a.m., Alex escribió:
> Hi
>
> This topic is not about DOS vs other operating systems, or the fact
> that users tend to gradually abandon DOS. It's about the survivability
> of DOS vis-a-vis hardware.
> The starting point for my reasoning is: what will happen with the
> future de
Well I would say this about hardware.
I began using dos in 1988, when I first came to computers.
It is now 2012, and I am still using it.
My experience has personally been that people have created ways to use dos
with hardware as it changes, no reason for that to stop any time soon.
I am not talki
Hi
This topic is not about DOS vs other operating systems, or the fact
that users tend to gradually abandon DOS. It's about the survivability
of DOS vis-a-vis hardware.
The starting point for my reasoning is: what will happen with the
future development of the hardware architectures? So far DOS ha
44 matches
Mail list logo
