> Maybe you could save 1, 2, or 3 KB lower memory, but probably not more. Hardly > worth the work that would have to be put into this move.
Ok, but did I indicate that I want to optimize DOS' low memory usage at all? > Moving a 16 Bit DOS program that uses far pointers *extensively* to a > 32 bit world comes close to rewriting it (and redebugging it with a > zillion crazy programs). Only if the 16-bit program has a very bad design! :) >>> You would get more something like dosbox than something like dos ;-) >> Is this argument meant serious? > YEP. would work most of the time. ??? >> Hopefully not, because it is "not very convincing". > It's the other way around: moving the (Free)DOS kernel doesn't give you > much of advantage. > Not that this can't be done. But IMO it's not worth the effort. Sorry, but I wasn't talking about benefits/costs at all. To repeat myself: it's just that replacing some real-mode code by protected-mode code won't change DOS' "nature". > Better to teach XCDROM/XDMA to handle S-ATA drives as well ;) Hm, thanks for the hint, it's appreciated! But ... there is a slight chance that I indeed know what I'm doing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
