On 2013-02-09 10:56 (GMT-0800) Ray Davison composed:
> A little background. My first PC ran DOS 3.3 on a 28M HDD that I broke
> into three partitions, all primaries. Since the extended came out every
> machine I have had has had a single primary - 2G or less, Fat 16 - with
> one or more installs
I usually don't use the installers, try to install manually:
- Copy KERNEL.SYS + FREECOM.COM + SYS.COM + WDE.COM
- Backup B.S. with WDE
- SYS C: /BOOTONLY
On 2/9/13, Ray Davison wrote:
> A little background. My first PC ran DOS 3.3 on a 28M HDD that I broke
> into three partitions, all prima
A little background. My first PC ran DOS 3.3 on a 28M HDD that I broke
into three partitions, all primaries. Since the extended came out every
machine I have had has had a single primary - 2G or less, Fat 16 - with
one or more installs of DOS and maybe Win9X. The rest of the drive, and
any o
Op 11-4-2012 21:33, Jack schreef:
> Send me a private E-Mail, and if XMGR can be modified so Syslinux and
> Isolinux do NOT "confuse" it, I will make such modifications in XMGR!
I'll try to figure out what's going on, however have much doubt that I'd
be skilled enough to actually find a root cau
>>> ... With my own testing I found JEMMEX more compatible than XMGR
>>> or HIMEMX + JEMM386 in various cases, but on other systems it is
>>> different, as Mike mentioned ...
>>
>> To WHAT "incompatibilities" are you referring??
>
> The A20 stuff that Syslinux/Isolinux (and MEMDISK) mess around wit
Op 11-4-2012 21:10, Jack schreef:
>> ... With my own testing I found JEMMEX more compatible than XMGR or
>> HIMEMX + JEMM386 in various cases, but on other systems it's different,
>> as Mike mentioned ...
>
> To WHAT "incompatibilities" are you referring??
The A20 stuff that Syslinux/Isolinux (and
> ... With my own testing I found JEMMEX more compatible than XMGR or
> HIMEMX + JEMM386 in various cases, but on other systems it's different,
> as Mike mentioned ...
To WHAT "incompatibilities" are you referring??
Be advised of the following --
1) JEMMEX/JEMM386 use "old" memory-test schemes,
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
> Op 11-4-2012 20:02, Rugxulo schreef:
>
> The entire idea of opensource was to be able to modify sources to suit a
> person's needs. Most people, including me, haven't got enough interest
> or experience to be a programmer, but still, a bi
Op 11-4-2012 20:02, Rugxulo schreef:
> Users will always need sources, esp. if they share, but they don't
> necessarily need to unpack them. (Well, anyways, they probably don't
> have all compilers anyways.)
The entire idea of opensource was to be able to modify sources to suit a
person's needs
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Eric Auer wrote:
>
>>> it seems even on modern hardware unpacking FreeCOM
>>> during install may take VERY long, so we need a fix:
>>
>> This seems to be specific to the old installer (v3.7.8 by Jeremy) I
>> think, as that unpacks entire packages. Sourcecode
Hi Bernd,
>> it seems even on modern hardware unpacking FreeCOM
>> during install may take VERY long, so we need a fix:
>
> This seems to be specific to the old installer (v3.7.8 by Jeremy) I
> think, as that unpacks entire packages. Sourcecode modification would be
> required to add a "-x source
Op 10-4-2012 18:21, Eric Auer schreef:
> it seems even on modern hardware unpacking FreeCOM
> during install may take VERY long, so we need a fix:
This seems to be specific to the old installer (v3.7.8 by Jeremy) I
think, as that unpacks entire packages. Sourcecode modification would be
required
> Have you tried explicit "I=-" and "X=-" commands with
> JEMM386/JEMMEX??
I've tried several different JEMM options -- none of them fixed the problem on
that particular computer. I finally just gave up and went to other
alternatives.
--
>> actually I would not even OFFER a boot menu item to skip loading the
>> XMS driver at all: You cannot even boot the install CD / USB on old
>> pre-XMS PC.
>
> Probably a bad idea for compatibility reasons, unless you offer multiple
> choices for which XMS manager to install. E.g., I have a c
the "no-drivers" choice, No. 4, is provided because some
programs, such as PLoP, will not load at all unless there
are *no drivers* loaded, at least on my system...
PLoP chokes on any drivers in freedos 1.1, saying:
"cannot run under windows in a dos box", in effect.
i kid you not.
> actually I would not even OFFER a boot menu item to skip loading the
> XMS driver at all: You cannot even boot the install CD / USB on old
> pre-XMS PC.
Probably a bad idea for compatibility reasons, unless you offer multiple
choices for which XMS manager to install. E.g., I have a computer wh
Hi Bernd,
it seems even on modern hardware unpacking FreeCOM
during install may take VERY long, so we need a fix:
- it is good to have source and binary in one zip
- but you can use info-zip's command line options
(-x source/*) to exclude sources from unzip :-)
- a default install does not n
Op 8-4-2012 19:44, Michael B. Brutman schreef:
> Some of us figured out that on ancient hardware (8088, 80286, etc.) the
> decompression process takes a long time. If you are running in a
> virtual machine and your underlying hardware/operating system does not
> fully support virtualization then y
On 4/3/2012 1:18 AM, Michael Robinson wrote:
> There is a syntax error message that flashes before the where to install
> freedos to and from menu comes up. Another problem, install freezes at
> installing command.com. Uge!
>
Are you installing on old hardware or in a virtual machine?
Some of u
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Michael Robinson
wrote:
>
> There is a syntax error message that flashes before the where to install
> freedos to and from menu comes up. Another problem, install freezes at
> installing command.com. Uge!
I'm pretty sure it was agreed upon that it doesn't te
There is a syntax error message that flashes before the where to install
freedos to and from menu comes up. Another problem, install freezes at
installing command.com. Uge!
--
Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec
21 matches
Mail list logo
