Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM, dmccunney wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM, David C. Kerber >> wrote: From: dmccunney [mailto:dennis.mccun...@gmail.com] On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo wrote: >> > I thought WinME

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

There's always DEBUG & QBASIC. :D Remember when magazines used to actually post DEBUG & QBASIC scripts. -L On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:54 PM, dmccunney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, dmccunney > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, dmccunney wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote: >>> At 05:12 PM 1/9/2013, Louis Santillan wrote: An interesting historical note, early versions of the FreeDOS kernel (DOS-C kernel)

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

Hi, On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM, dmccunney wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM, David C. Kerber > wrote: >>> From: dmccunney [mailto:dennis.mccun...@gmail.com] >>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > >>> > I thought WinME removed the real mode bootup, hence lower >>> compat

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

Hi, On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, dmccunney wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote: >> At 05:12 PM 1/9/2013, Louis Santillan wrote: >>>An interesting historical note, early versions of the FreeDOS kernel >>>(DOS-C kernel) were portable to the 68k architecture. See >>>(

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

Hi, On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > >>> A hypervisor that can run dosbox and make modern hardware work >>> with old dos programs anyone? How about dosbox running on a Pentium 133 >>> or a Pentium 166 machine with 16 megs of ram? >> >> Insufficient demand to justify the effort.

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

Hi, On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:43 PM, dmccunney wrote: >>> >>> EMS used a 64KB page frame located in the block between 640K and 1MB, >>> and paged memory above 1MB into it for use. >> >> I vaguely thought EMS 4.0 didn't need a page frame? (Where's Eric to explain >> all this when you need him? Heh

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Ralf A. Quint wrote: > At 05:12 PM 1/9/2013, Louis Santillan wrote: >>An interesting historical note, early versions of the FreeDOS kernel >>(DOS-C kernel) were portable to the 68k architecture. See >>(http://en.m.wikipedi

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

At 05:12 PM 1/9/2013, Louis Santillan wrote: >An interesting historical note, early versions of the FreeDOS kernel >(DOS-C kernel) were portable to the 68k architecture. See >(http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Villani). Well, you noticed that in that

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

An interesting historical note, early versions of the FreeDOS kernel (DOS-C kernel) were portable to the 68k architecture. See ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Villani). -L On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Ralf A. Quint wrote: > At 04:15 PM 1/9/2013, Michael Robinson wrote: > > > Most embedded

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

At 04:15 PM 1/9/2013, Michael Robinson wrote: > > Most embedded processors (that are still actively produced) are > > 32-bit. Anyways, I don't think FreeDOS qualifies, at least not for > > 8-bit (AVR??) ones. > >PIC16F505, PIC16F1938... these are microchip baseline 8 bit >microprocessors intended

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

> Most embedded processors (that are still actively produced) are > 32-bit. Anyways, I don't think FreeDOS qualifies, at least not for > 8-bit (AVR??) ones. PIC16F505, PIC16F1938... these are microchip baseline 8 bit microprocessors intended for embedded use. Yes microchip offers 32 bit processo

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:43 PM, dmccunney wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Rugxulo wrote: >> On Jan 9, 2013 11:06 AM, "dmccunney" wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > > At the moment, I'm posting from an Acer netbook that has 1.5GB RAM, so > I created a 128MB RA

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

>> A hypervisor that can run dosbox and make modern hardware work >> with old dos programs anyone? How about dosbox running on a Pentium 133 >> or a Pentium 166 machine with 16 megs of ram? > > Insufficient demand to justify the effort. There may not be a lot of demand, but I see it as an intere

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM, David C. Kerber wrote: >> From: dmccunney [mailto:dennis.mccun...@gmail.com] >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo wrote: >> > I thought WinME removed the real mode bootup, hence lower >> compatibility? >> >> Don't have it and haven't used it, so don't know.

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

> -Original Message- > From: dmccunney [mailto:dennis.mccun...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:05 PM > To: Discussion and general questions about FreeDOS. > Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available? > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugx

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > On Jan 9, 2013 11:06 AM, "dmccunney" wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo wrote: >> > I thought WinME removed the real mode bootup, hence lower compatibility? >> I'm pretty sure there was still DOS underneath like in ME. Removin

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

Hi, On Jan 9, 2013 11:06 AM, "dmccunney" wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > > I thought WinME removed the real mode bootup, hence lower compatibility? > I'm > pretty sure there was still DOS underneath like in ME. Removing the > real mode loader didn't occur till NT.

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rugxulo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:38 AM, dmccunney wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Michael Robinson >> wrote: >> >>> A protected mode dos like the one under Windows 9x and Windows ME >>> could be interesting and would justifiably deserve a diffe

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

Hi, On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:38 AM, dmccunney wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Michael Robinson > wrote: > >> A protected mode dos like the one under Windows 9x and Windows ME >> could be interesting and would justifiably deserve a different name > > I wouldn't call that a "protected mod

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

Hi, On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Michael Robinson wrote: > > There are some programs that require Windows 3.1 or 3.11 which can run > on top of Freedos, but more work on compatibility would not hurt. While I agree in theory, there just aren't enough skilled developers for that. Besides, Win16

Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos V2.0 - when will it be available?

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Michael Robinson wrote: > A protected mode dos like the one under Windows 9x and Windows ME > could be interesting and would justifiably deserve a different name > like Freedos-32. The problem with a dos environment is that there > isn't an operating system taking