> Dos is much more than a FAT driver Do you talk about the "date/time" functions? :)
> but a JEMMX plugin version of DOSLFN would be an idea... why should this be better than a full VFAT driver? AFAICS DOSLFN suffers from not being tightly integrated into the DOS FAT driver. > For example if you let FreeDOS > move the "list of lists" to UMB or even HMA, you get, afair, > 10 kB more low DOS RAM free, but get less compatibility. So a > virtual kernel would have similar problems. Moving some known DOS data items away from conventional memory might be a problem, but why should moving the FAT code into extended memory give similiar problems? I cannot see those similiarities. > You would get more something like dosbox than something like dos ;-) Is this argument meant serious? Hopefully not, because it is "not very convincing". Why should a protected-mode FAT driver make DOS change to a "DOS emulator"? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
