Thx for the reply Eric.
I have Btrieve5 running happily under MSDOS6.22 and DRDOS7.03
with VirtualBox. I think I remember in the past I had it running with
DOSEMU so it seemed strange that FreeDOS had a problem.
Cheers
Roger
On Sun, 2020-08-16 at 12:23 +0200, Eric Auer wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>
> >
I'm starting to think that part of the problem I was running is because
I was running dosfsck on 86Box -which (in this case) emulates a Pentium.
It worked reasonably quickly in VirtualBox.
I think that having a modern disk controller and newer CPU would help, yes.
But you would be moving real
While I truly respect the terrific experiment people do here, when
relating to my own experiences I can get a bit confused.
The computer I am using to write this email, running the later edition
of ms dos I referenced has two hard drives split into four partitions.
One drive is 40 gig the ot
Jim Hall wrote:
> >> Use these dial in numbers:
> >> https://www.bluejeans.com/numbers
> >
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020, Eric Auer wrote:
> > Assuming that you are in USA:
> >
> > United States
> > Atlanta +1.404.458.0105
> > Chicago +1.312.216.0325
> > San Jose (NEW)+1.408.915.6290
>
...well you know what they say about assumptions.
Thanks for the International numbers link Jim.
Most fascinating experience
Karen
On Sun, 16 Aug 2020, Eric Auer wrote:
Use these dial in numbers:
https://www.bluejeans.com/numbers
Assuming that you are in USA:
United States
Atlanta +1.404.4
Hi
I made a virtualbox VM with a 12gb hard drive and a base install with
source.
Running dosfsck -a -v took around 90 seconds approximately. My host
system is an i5/sata/windows 10.
Running on 86Box was different. I'm sure part of it is because 86box
intends to be cycle accurate.
Here's
Hi!
As you use an emulator, can you try with 32 or 64 MB RAM?
You can also tell dosfsck to be more verbose, which might
help to know at which phase things are taking too long.
Regards, Eric
> It was dosfsck 2.11 DOS3, 8 Aug 2007; the version from FreeDOS RC3. I
> was using it on a 12gb hard dr
Hi
It was dosfsck 2.11 DOS3, 8 Aug 2007; the version from FreeDOS RC3. I
was using it on a 12gb hard drive.
But this was in 86Box (emulating a Pentium 133 with 16mb of ram), so the
problem may have been with the emulator and not with the program.
It's very possible that I simply didn't wait
>> https://bluejeans.com/489022794/7166
> What join from browser link?
Just more towards the bottom right of the
text advertising the apps. Still better
than zoom where you have to "fail" using
the app twice before it will admit that
you can use it in the browser without app.
> [quote]
> Your m
Geraldo Netto composed on 2020-08-16 18:48 (UTC+0200):
> We are online now!
> Join us for the FreeDOS virtual get-together! You can connect right
> from your browser. You don't need to download the BlueJeans client -
> if prompted to install a BlueJeans meeting client, you can close that
> and cl
> Use these dial in numbers:
> https://www.bluejeans.com/numbers
Assuming that you are in USA:
United States
Atlanta +1.404.458.0105
Chicago +1.312.216.0325
San Jose (NEW) +1.408.915.6290
San Jose (NEW) +1.408.419.1715
San Mateo (NEW) +1.650.963.5767
Washington D.C. (NEW) +1.202.795.3352
Alte
Use these dial in numbers:
https://www.bluejeans.com/numbers
And the meeting number is in the URL that Geraldo sent.
We'll be on for another half hour or so.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 12:07 PM Karen Lewellen
wrote:
> I thought there would be a phone number?
> When following that link in Lynx it
I thought there would be a phone number?
When following that link in Lynx it simply takes me in a circle with
nothing after the words skip to content.
Kare
On Sun, 16 Aug 2020, Geraldo Netto wrote:
Hey Volks!
We are online now!
Join us for the FreeDOS virtual get-together! You can connect
Hey Volks!
We are online now!
Join us for the FreeDOS virtual get-together! You can connect right
from your browser. You don't need to download the BlueJeans client -
if prompted to install a BlueJeans meeting client, you can close that
and click the "Join from browser" link instead. See you onli
Putting the answer at the top.
Someone packaged the edition of ms dos running under windows 98 and
added extra utilities to the package.
One reason why I said strict DOS is to avoid suggestions that are not
possibilities for me, like windows or Linux.
Karen
On Sun, 16 Aug 2020, Thomas Mue
Hi! Which version of dosfsck hangs for you,
how large are the drives (if possible also
in the unit clusters) and how much memory
do you have available? How long have you
waited - maybe it just took rather long?
You probably want to disable swapfiles in
your cwsdpmi or other dpmi configuration,
d
Hi Roger,
> I have install FreeDOS on VirtualBox to run an old application that
> uses Btrieve5 as the file handler. Sadly, when JEMMEX is loaded I get
> an Exception 06
Have you tried dosemu2 (if Linux) or dosbox (Windows or Linux)
instead? Which other memory drivers have you tried? You could
dosfsck appears to work on FAT32, though I've had it hang on very large
(~10gb) drives.
On 8/16/2020 12:22 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote:
Hi folks,
I believe I will ask the same question on the dos ain't dead list.
Still, I am curious what strict dos third party diagnostic tools you like
using?
On
> Hi folks,
> I believe I will ask the same question on the dos ain't dead list.
> Still, I am curious what strict dos third party diagnostic tools you like
> using?
> One heart break about norton utilities, I have the last DOS edition, is that
> it cannot see more than two partitions.
> the
19 matches
Mail list logo
