Hi Darrin, > How is EIDL (claims to mimic IDLE.COM <http://IDLE.COM>) different from > FDAPM (which is basically POWER.EXE)?
Exactly in that way! (EIDL doesn't mimic MS POWER.EXE.) Quoting myself from <https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=16269>: ### Recently I wanted to know, how IDLE.COM in Microsoft Virtual PC works. I can say, it is a rather simple tool and contains lots of garbage in its only 128 bytes. -- IDLE works by hooking the DOS idle interrupt 28h and executing a HLT instruction every time. At the end I put together a tool, that does the same. I named it EIDL, but you pronounce it "idle". (A little play with the German language.) It's 80 bytes only, but comes with source code for NASM. See it as little ASM example, because it is not as advanced as all the other DOS idlers including Eric Auer's FDAPM. ### FDAPM has commands to control APM functions, to reboot the machine, to power off, to flush disk caches. (see DOC\FDAPM\FDAPM.TXT) EIDL.COM takes 80 bytes on disk. (Comppressed) FDAPM.COM takes 7,434 bytes. (Ignoring cluster sizes on disks.) > I'm curious to know the differences between all of the solutions really. Feel free to try all the solutions to find the one, that fits your needs best. > But I'm mostly curious why (freedos related) FDAPM didn't work for you? > (worked great for me!) I never said, it didn't work. Cheers, Robert -- +++ BTTR Software +++ Home page: https://www.bttr-software.de/ DOS ain't dead: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
