> Originally it was 3.3 because that was a version > which worked with most apps and still relatively > simple. Later we got UMB
and HMA > which are very useful so > we aimed for 5.0 kernel compatibility. Remember > that 5.0 and 6.22 basically have the same kernel. > Now we also have LBA and FAT32, but I do not think > that we want to be very Just "a bit" compatible? > MS Win98 DOS 7 compatible as > this DOS was not even meant to run DOS apps anyway. It was. As Microsoft had shown with MS-DOS 8 they were able to (and did) disable the "DOS mode" of Windows 4.x later. So MS-DOS 7 (both versions) were meant to run DOS software. Why does this question matter, anyway? Late DOS apps were written with FAT32 and/or LFN support aimed exactly at MS-DOS 7. The authors probably didn't care whether this MS-DOS was intended to be DOS. It worked well being exactly this. > So if you ask me: Our current goal is compatibility > with MS DOS 5 / 6 kernel in the general case and a > nice collection of apps similar to MS DOS 6... Plus > support for new hardware in ways which may (FAT32, > LBA) but do not need to be compatible to Win DOS 7. Might be coincidence that the DPB layout of MS-DOS 7 and FAT32 DOS-C is the same. Or that the same new, complicated FAT32 Int21 functions are supported. Or that DOSLFN services exactly the LFN functions used by MS-DOS 7 COMMAND.COM versions. Regards, Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
