Slashdot Mirror


FreeDOS Turns 10 Years Old Today

Jim Hall writes "The FreeDOS Project turns 10 years old today! PD-DOS was announced to the world on June 28, 1994. The PD-DOS project was later renamed to the FreeDOS Project. We've come a long way in 10 years. Today, FreeDOS is ideal for anyone who wants to bundle a version of DOS without having to pay a royalty for use of DOS. FreeDOS will also work on old hardware, in DOS emulators, and in embedded systems. FreeDOS is also an invaluable resource for people who would like to develop their own operating system. While there are many free operating systems out there, no other free DOS-compatible operating system exists. Read more about the FreeDOS Project history in the About FreeDOS page."

183 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. os development by ultrabot · · Score: 4, Funny

    FreeDOS is also an invaluable resource for people who would like to develop their own operating system.

    Doesn't sound like the heritage I would like to learn from :-).

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    1. Re:os development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People who use something like DOS to develop their own OS use it for testing their OS, not building off of DOS. DOS's strong point is its weak point, it can run another OS inside of it. People have been known to run linux from inside DOS. This is also a bad thing as far as security goes, you can take complete control of the computer, which is a reason why user accounts were useless in Windows 95/98/ME which was run on top of DOS.

    2. Re:os development by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 5, Informative
      User accounts on Win9x/ME can offer preference/config personilisation for different users sitting at the computer. Convenience was the goal, not security. As Win9x/ME reside on FAT16/32 filesystems, any user can gain access to any file.

      If one of those users wanted "complete control" of the computer - all they have to do is reboot the computer with an OS on a bootable CD (Knoppix, Gnoppix, etc). This can be done to take control of Linux, Win2K, WinXP, etc. NTFS is no obstacle, nor are the myriad of file systems available for use by a Linux installation. Encrypted file systems can prevent root access - but very few people have the time for this setup - plus recovery can be a real beatch.

      The strong point of DOS is not being able to run another OS - it's being able to have more control over how you run certain applications. It can also facilitate recovery when things go wrong. The hardware requirements are less. Flexibility is a good thing. There is no need to port legacy apps that have been working flawlessly for years.

      I personally dont use FreeDOS - I still have a Win98 partition with DOS installed. If I didn't own Win98 - FreeDOS is something I would explore for the rare occasions I would want to play old-school games.

      DOS 6.22 (unsupported) can be downloaded free from: Micro$oft.com

    3. Re:os development by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Funny

      Doesn't sound like the heritage I would like to learn from :-)

      Come on, it beats even Linux hands down in the remote exploit area! I can't say I know a single person that had his DOS boxed hacked into remotely. I guess it's because of this there was no DOS firewalls! Who needs them when it has rock solid network security!?

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:os development by sr180 · · Score: 4, Funny
      If one of those users wanted "complete control" of the computer - all they have to do is reboot the computer with an OS on a bootable CD (Knoppix, Gnoppix, etc).

      No, in 95/98, all they needed to do was click escape at the login box.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    5. Re:os development by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 1
      I think it is click Cancel or press Escape to bypass the login screen.

      Regardless, any user on Win9x could install/do/delete what they liked. Using DOS/FreeDOS provide similar flexibility (without needing to logon of course).

      In many situations (like with my home PC) - physical access to the box by others is not a concern. At home I value the convenience over physical security as I know I am the only person who will sit at the keyboard. (yes I am firewalled - network security is another matter).

      My point was, unlike the AC parent, I find user accounts in Win9x/ME to be useful. There are many situations where the lack of security/greater convenience is ideal - especially for 'power users' who know what they are doing - and want to do it quickly without the overhead of accounts and privs.

    6. Re:os development by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a Step-Up version. Step-Up is the MS-DOS equivalent of Upgrade editions of Windows. It requires DOS to already be installed.

    7. Re:os development by eggsome · · Score: 1

      No, in 95/98, all they needed to do was click escape at the login box

      While that's true, it's important to remember that if you did choose cancel on the login box you would loose access to all network resources (not just the ones that you need a password for).

      --
      If they made a movie of your life, would anybody buy a ticket?
    8. Re:os development by drwho · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I can't say I know a single person that had his DOS boxed hacked into remotely.

      Ever heard of PC Anywhere? Several times I have come across these things, hooked up to DOS based PCs. These are typically long-forgotten specialty boxes, such as the one controlling the community events board of a cable TV franchise.

    9. Re:os development by kristaps.kaupe · · Score: 1

      No, in 95/98, all they needed to do was click escape at the login box.

      This can be disabled in registry.
    10. Re:os development by kristaps.kaupe · · Score: 2, Informative

      There *is* a tcp/ip stack for dos.

      No, there are tcp/ip stacks for dos. Some of them are TSR programs, some are statically linked libraries. And each of them have unique configuration mechanism. :( (but you can always keep your IP configuration in environment variables and use batchs scripts to create configuration for all required TCP/IP stacks).

      I have heard of Dos Routers and firewalls

      I know two - IPRoute and Internet Extender (I was using it at home before switching to Linux router).
    11. Re:os development by kristaps.kaupe · · Score: 1

      and disable the F5/F8 keys during boot (no safemode or boot to DOS)

      AFAIK you can disable Fx keys during start-up of MS-DOS 7 (Win9x), but you can't disable Shift (safe mode command prompt only) and Ctrl (displays boot menu on Win98 [not Win95]).
    12. Re:os development by vector0319 · · Score: 1

      To solve your last issue of valid users crippling the system you could use a hardrive protection utility like Centurian Guard. This hardware device puts the harddrive into a "read-only" state allowing anyone to do anything to the contents of the drive. You can even deltree c:\*.*, but once you reboot the contents come back because the users can only actually add/remove data on a temp partition. This works really well with a domain controller (ala samba) so all users data stays safe on a network drive.

      --
      My well being does not depend on my slashdot score.
  2. DOS is still alive! by oldosadmin · · Score: 5, Informative

    DOS is still alive as a great platform for limited uses.

    If you need some utilities to go along with freeDOS, try my site, Old Os or if you have problems setting it up try our forums.

    --
    Jay | http://oldos.org
    1. Re:DOS is still alive! by bcrowell · · Score: 2, Funny

      DOS is still alive as a great platform for limited uses.
      Yeah, I still really enjoy playing the Dunjonquest games under TRSDOS on the xtrs emulator. That is the DOS we're talking about, right?

    2. Re:DOS is still alive! by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      Are you an idiot ?

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  3. No I didn't RTFA by servognome · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess posting your website on /. counts as a Free Denial of Service(FreeDOS) attack?

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  4. The "About FreeDos" Page before it gets /.ed by bairy · · Score: 4, Informative

    FreeDOS aims to be a complete, free, 100% MS-DOS compatible operating system.

    FreeDOS was previously known as "Free-DOS" and originally as "PD-DOS." For a little trip down memory lane: In 1994, I was a physics student at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls. Most of my work for school had been done using DOS - writing programs, dialing up to the university computer, network, analysing lab data, etc. I really loved DOS; I did everything with it. I had a '386 desktop system in my dorm room and an XT laptop that I would carry around with me to do work "on the go".

    I liked the simplicity that DOS offered. As a DOS user, you have the equivalent of 'root' access on your computer. Anything that you want to do on the PC is possible. Nothing is really stopping you, other than hardware limitations. I found that this additional degree of freedom was nice to have, although since I worked in both environments (UNIX and DOS) I tended to write programs that stuck to "safe areas" that worked on both platforms. DOS was great.

    But that year, there was an announcement that Microsoft would stop support for DOS, that a new version of Windows was going to be released that completely removed DOS from the picture. Of course, this was Windows 95, and it still did have DOS, but at that time we all had the vision that Microsoft was trying to kill our favorite operating system. Everyone was pretty shocked. We didn't want to be forced to use Windows, which completely removes the command line. In DOS, everything is done on the command line, and a true command line "guru" can do amazing things there. In Windows, you are stuck with the mouse, and if the menus don't let you do something, it pretty much can't be done. So things were looking pretty bleak. We were all very upset about Microsoft's decision to ditch the DOS platform.

    Then, I saw a discussion thread on the DOS groups asking "hey, why doesn't someone write their own free version of DOS?" Remember, this was about three years after Linus Torvalds announced his work on the Linux kernel, and by 1993 Linux had shown that free software can achieve incredible results. So in 1994, the suggestion that we could write our own free version of DOS, and give it away with the source code so others could work with it and improve it, really didn't sound all that far-fetched.

    Unfortunately, no one seemed to pick up the ball. The idea sort of sat there, waiting. I didn't have much experience in writing C or Assembly programs (most of my analytical work in physics was limited to FORTRAN) but I had written some C programs. So I sat down one weekend and hacked out code for a bunch of DOS file utilities. I posted what I had done to the DOS newsgroups, and announced that I intended to form a group on the Internet to write our own free version of DOS.

    I took the opportunity to fix some things. There are some things about what Microsoft did with DOS that do irk me. The biggest is that MS-DOS commands lack options, not that there are lots of MS-DOS commands anyway. I wanted to have more powerful tools than what MS-DOS provided me with. So I hacked some of my own. (I wasn't a strong C programmer at the time, so this wasn't very beautiful code.)

    There were several "beta" pre-release packages of my stuff:

    • 0.10 - contained a few basic utilities, just to get the easy ones out of the way: clear (like CLS), echo, more, rem, type, ver, wait (like Pause)
    • 0.11 - added date, test (some do-nothing test program), time
    • 0.12 - added choose
    • 0.13 - fixes and some cleanup
    • 0.14 - added tee (like UNIX 'tee')
    • 0.15 - added bgc (sets background color), fgc (sets foreground color), man (like UNIX 'man')
    • ...
    • 1.0 - clear replaced by cls, man replaced by help, wait replaced by pause, bgc and fgc moved into cls. Added del, find, reboot, unix2dos.

    Afte

    --


    Get paid to search..It's geniune and
    1. Re:The "About FreeDos" Page before it gets /.ed by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Another thing, if you need a system that runs 24/7/365 for years on end, DOS will do it. So long as no ill-mannered app takes it down, DOS will keep running, and running... my old 286, which ran DOS6.0 and worked its little ass off, had a stretch with only two reboots in FIVE YEARS, both times due to hardware issues (once the HD needed a fresh low-level format, the other time the power was out longer than the UPS's capacity).

      All reasons why "I will give up DOS when they pry my cold dead computer from around it!"

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  5. Don't trust those guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny


    Their project is basically a 16-bit wrapper of FreeWINDOWS product.

  6. emu by areve · · Score: 1

    FreeDOS is a operating system I've only ever used in emu's bochs, qemu etc... Happy birthday FreeDOS!

    1. Re:emu by bhtooefr · · Score: 3, Informative

      You'll also find it on =80486 webservers. And yes, they do exist.

    2. Re:emu by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      AHH, that was supposed to be =<80486, not =80486...

  7. Does it play games? by jakel2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The real question is does it play those old games. I miss SimAnt, SimCity (the DOS Versions), Warcraft, Leisure Suite Larry, Space Quest, Heros Quest, Police Quest, Kings Quest and all the other old dos games of the time. Heaven forbid running these on MS-DOS.

    1. Re:Does it play games? by Mesaeus · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's where you use DOSBox, a DOS emulator (mainly) for old games. It doesn't play all dos games yet but every release gets better.

    2. Re:Does it play games? by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Informative

      Runs Descent, Descent2, Jazz Jackrabbit and One Must Fall 2097 for me. Although DOS4GW doesn't work on it, but you can replace the extender with the Zurenava DOS Extender, for example.

      The site's in Russian, but it's simple to use. You run it on the game executable to replace the extender it uses. After that it works fine. Some games seem to lock up on exit on my laptop, but everything works fine during play, so it shouldn't be a huge problem.

    3. Re:Does it play games? by TTK+Ciar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Games is why I use FreeDOS on my laptop (dual-boot with Slackware 9.1).

      What I have on it now, which works: Boloball, Bridge, Checkkers, Civilization, Hexjump, Texas Hold'em, Battle for Atlantis, VGA Joust, Larn, Bugs, Othello, Starcon-1, Wari, WarZone, XCom, XCom Terror from the Deep.

      What doesn't work: Warcraft-2.

      What I have somewhere but haven't installed/tried under FreeDOS yet: Warcraft-1, Descent-I/II/III, Quake

      -- TTK

    4. Re:Does it play games? by dosius · · Score: 1

      For the most part yes. It's quite compatible now. When I first started using FreeDOS, not even QuickBasic ran right, but now it's hard to find - apart from Windows 3 - software that doesn't run on FreeDOS that does run on MS-DOS.

      Moll.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    5. Re:Does it play games? by dosius · · Score: 2, Informative

      DOSBOX only does 286. There are a good number of DOS games that need a 386. (My favorite, Wolfenstein 3-D, isn't one of them; it runs just fine on a 286. I actually use DOSBOX to test my hacks on Wolf3D.)

      Moll.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    6. Re:Does it play games? by gotr00t · · Score: 1

      OMG where has this been all my life! This totally kicks VMware's ass when it comes to running old games!

    7. Re:Does it play games? by tyrotyro · · Score: 1

      AGDI have remade Kings Quest One and Two in VGA modes with voice and music packs.
      Check it out at http://www.agdinteractive.com

      Awesome stuff!
      --
      Here's a guy who enjoys his job: The UPS Man
    8. Re:Does it play games? by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      Is that why Starcontrol 2 plays so damn slow when I use DOSBox under win2k? (or some DOS emu on gentoo)

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    9. Re:Does it play games? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Warcraft II works just fine in DOSBox. At least it did last time I tried it.

    10. Re:Does it play games? by lvd · · Score: 1

      Freedos also runs great inside the FreeBSD 'doscmd' tool (comes standard with the install).

      doscmd(1) emulates just enough of the bios in userspace on bsd to do useful things, like running that old TurboPascal 3.0 suite, and creating dos-bootable filesystem images (ever had to find a way to produce the effect of format /s c: or sys c: on a real OS?)

      if you recompile it with X11 support, you can nearly play lemmings!

    11. Re:Does it play games? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Note also that the Causeway DOS extender was released into the public domain a while back; this was the preferred extender per folk in the Watcom newsgroups.

      http://www.devoresoftware.com/freesource/codefaq .h tm#Restrictions (beware the /. space)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    12. Re:Does it play games? by Nexx · · Score: 1

      noooo. It does 386 real and protected modes too.

  8. Who the hell would want free DoSing... by jakel2k · · Score: 2, Funny

    oh wait a sec.....

  9. It turns 10 today... by dillon_rinker · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but when will it turn 1.0?

    1. Re:It turns 10 today... by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      It's actually pretty darn close.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    2. Re:It turns 10 today... by kristaps.kaupe · · Score: 3, Funny

      When TODO list will be completed.

    3. Re:It turns 10 today... by Jim+Hall · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...but when will it turn 1.0?

      To quote another poster here on slashdot:

      FD has been quite useable for many years. The fact its not reached 1.0 is mainly due to debates on optional features needed to call it '1.0', and not related at all to its stablity or useablity.

  10. Re:DOS is Swedish for "DUHHHHHH" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually the name comes from QDOS, the Quick and Dirty Operating System. Seriously.

  11. Re:Why? by pnot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why on earth would anyone want to use a DOS clone?

    To run DOS applications.

    If you need something really simple with little overhead, combine your app with the OS features you need.

    What if the OS features I need are, in their entirity, "I need it to run this application"?

    DOS isn't a good fit.

    It's an excellent fit for DOS applications.

    If you need DOS for application support, then by God man, start porting the mission critical DOS app...

    Sure thing, as soon as you start paying me to do so.

    Seriously, though. If it's not broken, why fix it? Sure, it might be fun to port all those old applications to a modern OS, but who's going to pay for it? If you have a standalone machine already doing *exactly* what you need it to do, reliably, I see no need to start messing with it.

  12. Re:DOS is Swedish for "DUHHHHHH" by haakoneide · · Score: 1

    If one talks a little slobby, it can actually sound like "toilet" in Norwegian.

  13. FreeDOS for BIOS flashing by jedrek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I use FreeDOS quite (well, relatively speaking) often, but only for one thing - flashing my motherboard BIOS. I got rid of floppy drives long ago, after my last one died back in the previous century, and haven't looked back. Usually, I'll download the FreeDOS ISO, inject the drivers into it and burn it to a CD-RW. Then just boot up from the CD, flash the BIOS and I'm good.

    1. Re:FreeDOS for BIOS flashing by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apparently Asus distributes an emergency disc with a BIOS image, and flashing tools, that runs FreeDOS. I know this because FreeDOS has a big warning on their front page that there's a problem with Asus' copy of it - basically, it'll fark your MBR if you try to install FreeDOS from it.

    2. Re:FreeDOS for BIOS flashing by DrHyde · · Score: 1

      DOS is very useful for bootstrapping a more modern OS. For instance, I used it to get Linux onto my Toshiba Libretto. I had to go through those contortions because the Libretto only has one PCMCIA slot (and PCMCIA network cards can't netboot) and uses a bizarre PCMCIA floppy which isn't recognised by anything other than the Libretto's BIOS (and so isn't available in Linux).

      Also, if you rememberthe good old days of Netware 3 and 4, you'll know that they used DOS (in their case DR-DOS) as a boot loader.

  14. I actually installed FreeDOS in VMWare recently by jbellis · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unfortunately without VMWaare's fancy graphics drivers that don't work when the guest OS is DOS it was too slow to play the old game I was interested in (MOO 1).

    (But, DOSBox worked once I played with frameskip!)

    I think it's cool that we have these options today.

  15. Parts of FreeDOS will live Forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ReactOS uses a 32 bit port of freedos command.com as a cmd.exe replacement. It is 1000x better than that broken POS Microsoft ships with Windows that they call a shell.

  16. 10 years in the making! by ljavelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I find it humorous that it's still in Beta after 10 years of development.

    I'm not poo-pooing the effort, but you have to admit that that's a long time before declaring 1.0!

    1. Re:10 years in the making! by X3J11 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not that funny... Windows has been around for 20 years and Microsoft still hasn't managed to make it decent.

    2. Re:10 years in the making! by chgros · · Score: 1

      I find it humorous that it's still in Beta after 10 years of development.

      I'm not poo-pooing the effort, but you have to admit that that's a long time before declaring 1.0!

      GNU/Hurd is at 0.2 right now...

  17. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like it or not, DOS was extremely popular and countless hours have been spent learning to use it and develop applications for it. There are many established development tools and a huge amount of people experienced in developing for DOS. And to be honest, it's not a bad environment at all for single-tasking applications. It's bare-bones enough without asking developers to code their own OS routines from scratch. I don't see DOS going away anytime soon.

  18. 1.0 isnt a magic number by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Informative

    FD has been quite useable for many years. The fact its not reached 1.0 is mainly due to debates on optional features needed to call it '1.0', and not related at all to its stablity or useablity.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  19. Re:In other news... by MrRuslan · · Score: 1

    Well I wasnt serious in the post so no need for sarcasm :P

  20. Re:Why? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    * If you need something really simple with little overhead, combine your app with the OS features you need. *

    huh, isn't that the point of using DOS? having the os features you need(fileaccess and whatever) but no overhead?

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  21. Dos is Dead by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    Remember - Bill Gates said dos was dead? //ducks

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:Dos is Dead by I.+Appel · · Score: 1

      DOS is dead Bill Gates
      Bill Gates is dead DOS

  22. Dell and FreeDOS by ed1park · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Funny that this should come up as I only noticed yesterday that Dell sells systems with FreeDOS now.

    http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare .a spx/desktops_n?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

    This is great as I've been buying the cheapest SC servers to avoid the microsoft tax. With prices starting at $319, i can now afford to buy the 20 or so systems i was planning on for the business. nice

    1. Re:Dell and FreeDOS by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

      Dell has offered FreeDOS on their systems for a while now. Here are some links: 15 Jan 2004 and Aug 9 2003. Slashdot also ran a story about FreeDOS on Dells before.

  23. Re:Hooray! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    huh? I was quite happy that it was on the driver cd that came with computer I was installing an OS on to.

    since I had stupidly expected that xp would be smart enough to pick up scsi/sata drivers from a cd and not only from a floppy...

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  24. Will it run bash? by mangu · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have developed many systems running in DOS. A TSR will do pretty good when task scheduling isn't a big problem. But I do miss a good command interpreter. It's much quicker to write "ls *", rather than setting up the structures and calling the functions that read a directory in C. Wait... Is there Perl for freeDOS?

    1. Re:Will it run bash? by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have developed many systems running in DOS. A TSR will do pretty good when task scheduling isn't a big problem. But I do miss a good command interpreter. It's much quicker to write "ls *", rather than setting up the structures and calling the functions that read a directory in C. Wait... Is there Perl for freeDOS?

      Then just use Linux, or if you strongly prefer Windows, use Cygwin. I use both equally. Perl is a standard package in Cygwin (have to select it, tho) or you can install Perl in Windows with several different binary ports.

      For those of you that are unfamiliar with Cygwin (cygwin.com), its a Unix like environment for Windows. It takes up one directory and if you put the ../bin directory in your path, you can use the utilities in a Win9x/XP command prompt. Its called as a batch file, and its like SSHing into your own machine. it has a virtual directory structure that gives you full access to your whole drive or its own / structure under its windows path (safe), and most of the useful Unix utilities.

      The setup program lets you install Perl, GCC, plus other languages and compilers, and even an Xserver, although my luck with that is not so good. Even if you are a Windows only user, its a great way to get introduced to a fairly powerful shell, with several options like tch and bash, without the problems of a dual boot.

      It is NOT "Linux in Windows", its a set of APIs to be able to compile and run many Linux programs from source, with just a few mouse clicks to install the most common programs. Find it here. It's Free.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:Will it run bash? by mangu · · Score: 1

      Until I can get a Linux-in-a-chip system, that won't do for me. I'm looking from the hobbyist point of view, a system I can build with a dozen or so chips. I have lots of leftovers from the early days, things like 8088 CPU's and TTL chips. DOS is fine for building small interfaces that can communicate with a larger computer. Of course, I could use PIC's for that, but then what would I do with my collection of old chips?

    3. Re:Will it run bash? by kristaps.kaupe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, there is Perl port to DOS, as well as bash port. Unfotunatelly, for 386+ only. Check out DJGPP project. Also there was project called GNUish to port some GNU apps to 16-bits.

    4. Re:Will it run bash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The bash.exe from the Free Software Foundation's "GNU Tools for MSDOS" cd and book should work just fine, as long as you have a memory manager.

      I know someone who ran the FSF's bash.exe through an exe-to-com converter, and then named it command.com. It worked, and viruses which typically depend on jumping to particular place in command.com to run something now failed. However, I believe Word Perfect 5.1 also would not run.

    5. Re:Will it run bash? by oldosadmin · · Score: 1

      THAT is awesome. Post how to do that on my forum :)

      --
      Jay | http://oldos.org
    6. Re:Will it run bash? by nutsy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're looking for a system on a chip, but you want to use bash?! Uh... you might want to consider re-weighing your priorities there: bash is huge, over 460KB on my personal system. You might also want to try looking into 4DOS.

    7. Re:Will it run bash? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      if you actually read his comment, he wanted a command line environment, not bash. Bash is just one of many command line invironments. _I_ suggested bash, not fully understanding he wants something that will run on 8088s, which bash is not likely to do since Linux is not easily ported to anything less than a 386. (mmu)

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  25. Re:Legality of APIs by IvyKing · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'd be curious to know if Microsoft (or Novell -- PC-DOS) owns copyrights or patents on any of the DOS APIs. They're all implemented as interrupt 21h calls I beleive (its been a while), so nothing really has a name (as far as trademarks or patents go). Curious none-the-less, though.

    Considering that the original API's were based on CP/M, I don't think M$ would have much of a leg to stand on. In addition, Seattle Computer still retained some rights to DOS after it was sold to M$. Thirdly, back in the 80's, M$ allowed a couple of the big guys to sell their own versions - most notably Compaq with version 3.31 (first DOS to support more than 32 MB per logical partition).

  26. Stupid Linux question??? by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey, has anyone tried making this a DOS session on Linux? That would be sooo cool!!!

    1. Re:Stupid Linux question??? by croddy · · Score: 2, Informative

      FreeDOS will run on DOSEmu on Linux.

    2. Re:Stupid Linux question??? by dosius · · Score: 1

      DOSEMU uses FreeDOS to do just that.

      Moll.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    3. Re:Stupid Linux question??? by Mr.Radar · · Score: 1

      They already did, it's called DOSBox.

      --
      What if this signature were clever?
  27. DOS is small! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't see why some people dislike DOS.. Is it just because you teens have not ever used it, or your Linux/WinXP is so much cooler? Whatever, I don't care. You still have to use DOS to upgrade your motherboard/GPU BIOSes. You know what a BIOS is, do you.. I've even made one!

    I just did a bootable 1.44MB FreeDOS floppy that plays mp3/ogg files with MPXplay, and then put it on to a bootable CD-ROM with all the music content I like. Voila, free, open source, standalone car/home/whatever music player which does not need a hard drive (for swapping). Just boot from ATAPI CD-drive and play some tunes, even at your friend's house!

    Now try to do that with Linux/Windows/*BSD. I would have if I'd know how to do it. Preferably with a BSD system.

    I was looking a player that could play tracker songs (you know, those before mp3s when 80386 and dinosaurs ruled the earth), mp3s and oggs, but no DOS player can do that as far as I know. XTC-Play could do tracker songs and mp3s, but not oggs.

    I will eventually put a website of the bootable FreeDOS ogg/mp3 CD project. Maybe post it here..

    1. Re:DOS is small! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      On a cover CD I got with a PC mag of mine (Atomic MPC, Aussie Mag) they had a full media bootable CD. It was based on knoppix and had support for getting video from networked PC's (ic. wireless) PC tuner, HDD recorder (HDD wasnt needed to run, but it could save stuff to em), play DVD's / SVCD's / the rest of it.

      It could be fully loaded to RAM if you had enough, and you could add media to the CD or use a different CD.

      It was created for media set top boxes, and having a stuff around on my desktop it looked pretty good.

      Im sure if you looked around Knoppix sites there would be something similar online.

    2. Re:DOS is small! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Informative

      I just did a bootable 1.44MB FreeDOS floppy that plays mp3/ogg files with MPXplay, and then put it on to a bootable CD-ROM with all the music content I like. Voila, free, open source, standalone car/home/whatever music player which does not need a hard drive (for swapping). Just boot from ATAPI CD-drive and play some tunes, even at your friend's house!

      Now try to do that with Linux/Windows/*BSD.

      I did it three years ago:

      http://freshmeat.net/projects/mjbd/

    3. Re:DOS is small! by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 1

      You still have to use DOS to upgrade your motherboard/GPU BIOSes.

      I had to discover that Asrock's flash utility doesn't work with FreeDOS. :-( Asus worked fine, though.

    4. Re:DOS is small! by sigaar · · Score: 1

      Knoppix would. Not the full on version with KDE 3.x, but some of the smaller knoppix projects would. Especially if it has mmx working for it too, even at 100mz.

      Smallinux is a 50mb image - I use it on a 486DX2-66 with 16mb ram. Works fine with blackbox, I can listen to wav files, but I haven't tried mp3 and ogg - not sure if it would be fast enough. I remember my old DX4-100 16mb could just do mp3, but only if I wasn't trying to do anything at the same time.

      We also have a 100mhz Pentium (no mmx there yet) notebook running vector linux with XFCE desktop (32mb RAM though). It can play mp3s and oggs fine with about 50% CPU usage while XFCE is running.

      --
      sigaar
    5. Re:DOS is small! by gazurtoids · · Score: 1

      Christ, what an arsehole.

    6. Re:DOS is small! by Zardus · · Score: 1

      I love DOS and all, but there's no reason to bash other OSes. Movix does what you describe (plus video), and does it with a much better looking interface.

      --
      You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
    7. Re:DOS is small! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Heh.. I run XTC for DOS not only in DOS but also under Win32. Works fine. It will do tracked music, WAVs, and MP3s with the older type of ID3 tag, but chokes on some newer ones and possibly on VBR. And no one ever accused that PMode DOS extender of stability. Does anyone know what became of the source for XTC-Play for DOS? I'd think with a little capabilities extension and a more stable DPMI host, it could be as good as any modern music app.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    8. Re:DOS is small! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Not to carry this silliness much further, but can you hit alt-f2 and use a Unix shell while yours plays?

      Yeah, we each implemented something slightly different, to each his own. The fact is, though, that I have far more flexibility with a Unix shell and true multitasking environment than you'll ever have with DOS. But, sure, yours plays music and mine plays music.

  28. Re:Why? by croddy · · Score: 1

    RTLinux?

  29. Another stupid Linux question??? by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1

    With DOSEmu, do I even need FreeDOS?

    1. Re:Another stupid Linux question??? by jtev · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, dosemu needs a DOS to host. The standard Dos distributed with dosemu is freedos. Next question please.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
  30. Free - XP by uberfruk · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have decided to embark on a free Windows XP-like operating system. I plan to stick to a traditional Longhorn release time table; so the first release can be expected in the beginning of 2025. Also, I have very little experience coding, so you can expect numerous flaws similar to the ones already present.

    1. Re:Free - XP by saramakos · · Score: 1

      In other words you are going for 100% "Feature" compatibility?

    2. Re:Free - XP by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yes, but with all those features, how do we tell it from the real thing? ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Free - XP by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      This is going to get modded offtopic but thats ok. Just so you guys know, I was joking, not trolling. Sorry to give the wrong impression (apparently).

      --
      Why not fork?
  31. Windows on DOS on Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've kinda a strange question here...

    Is there a way to Windows 3.11 on top
    of Linux, short of VMware?

    Should a person expect Windows 3.11 to
    run on top of DOSemu and FreeDOS?

    OR would the original Windows 3.11 +
    DOS 5.x be expected to runon top of
    DOSemu?

    If anyone has a definitive answer, I'd
    like to know.

    1. Re:Windows on DOS on Linux? by iantri · · Score: 1

      Short answer: No. Well, maybe if you have a copy of OS/2, but it doesn't really work well.

    2. Re:Windows on DOS on Linux? by CanadianCrackPot · · Score: 1

      I have successfully run DOS 6.0 with Windows 3.0 within a dos emu session. I attempted to install Win 3.1 but I couldn't get it to start up even after downloading a file the DOSemu project reported was necessary. I do admit though that it seemed really wrong to see a Microsoft install screen within what I knew was a Linux system. It also took me way back to oh 9 years or so ago when most things were still text only for me (Excepting games of course).

      --
      Good programmers drink beer to relieve job stress.
      Great programmers drink hard liquor and work best hungover.
    3. Re:Windows on DOS on Linux? by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1

      DOSBox really isn't meant to run things too far up the flagpole.

      I'd recommend running Bochs for stuff between Windows 3.11 and Windows 98. It's more contained than DOSBox but it's nice and free and does a decent job. It works better in Linux than Windows too. Bochs rochs the sochs. (sorry, I just had to.)

    4. Re:Windows on DOS on Linux? by aitor.sm · · Score: 1

      Mind the many different "modes" in which this DOS/DPMI app. called Microsoft Windows can be run on.

      (1) In the "real mode" (until Windows 3.0), with no protected mode at all, I ignore if it currently runs under FreeDOS.

      (2) In the "standard mode" (until Windows 3.1), that is, using the DOSX DPMI server and extender, it runs up to bugs (or at least, there were some bugs time ago preventing Windows from running properly)

      (3) In the "386 enhanced mode", that is, using Microsoft's VMM (a 32-bit OS and PC virtualizer), it doesn't run, because of technical reasons involving inter VMM-DOS communications that are not implemented (and are not likely to be implemented in the nearby future).

  32. DOSbox by phorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    DOSBox seems aimed more at games than general applications, which seems to explain why some of the nicer points of freeDOS (such as printing/netprint support) don't seem to work as well/easily in dosbox. Easier to setup though, and good for some of the stuff that dosEMU doesn't handle as well yet.

  33. Cool! by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm still waiting for :
    FreeAS400
    FreeOS360
    FreeOS/2 (dammit!)
    FreeLinux - Oh wait. Duh! My Bad. I got a little carried away here. Nothing to see.....Move along....

    1. Re:Cool! by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Free os/360? wait no more (run it on the Hercules emulator on your pc) Some FreeNeXTSTEP would rock too!

    2. Re:Cool! by McDutchie · · Score: 3, Informative
      Some FreeNeXTSTEP would rock too!

      It isn't quite an OS, but GNUStep comes closest to being a FreeNeXTSTEP...

    3. Re:Cool! by ln+-sf+head+ass · · Score: 1
      Free OS360?!

      //JOB BEAVIS
      //EXEC PGM=IEBGENER
      //SYSUT1 DD *
      W00T!
      /*
      //SYSUT2 DD SYSOUT=A
      //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=A
      //

    4. Re:Cool! by RocketSHE · · Score: 1

      Thank you for dredging up *that* old memory! Now I'm going to have JCL nightmares for weeks! One of these days I'm going to burn those old punched cards in the basement.

      --
      ~==>RocketSHE
    5. Re:Cool! by ln+-sf+head+ass · · Score: 1

      Sorry :).

  34. Re:News Flash by ovoskeuiks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Try to kill it? nobody should try to kill an operating system or any other piece of software If it still has a valid use then people will still use it.

  35. Re:Why? by pnot · · Score: 1

    So why is anyone working on DOS?

    Let's be specific here: people are working on FreeDOS, a reimplementation of MS-DOS. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, it is stable and useful but not yet a complete reimplementation, which is why people are still working on it.

    Either it's broken...

    "Broken" is not really the same as "still under development". A great number of perfectly stable programs are still being actively developed.

    ... and should be ported to modern hardware...

    Eh? You've lost me now. AFAIK FreeDOS runs fine on modern hardware.

    or it's not broken, in which case no one should be working on it.

    I think the developers are free to work on what they like in their own time... how were you planning to stop them?

    People using DOS need to drive their avanti to the store and buy a $50 computer that will run a modern version of Linux or Windows.

    ... but still won't run the mission-critical DOS applications they were running in the first place? (Unless, of course, they install FreeDOS on their new $50 machines.) That would be a case of "if it's not broken, then break it", I think.

  36. Re:Why? by schwaang · · Score: 3, Informative
    Why on earth would anyone want to use a DOS clone?

    That post wasn't flamebait - it's a reasonable question.

    Here's one example -- Steve Gibson released a new version of his SpinRite hard disk test/recovery tool. grc.com It uses FreeDOS so you can boot from a floppy and test every sector.

    [I haven't tried the product, just noting one relevant modern use of DOS.]

  37. Re:Can it run Windows? by phorm · · Score: 1

    I dunno about freeDOS, but DOSBox can run 3.1 with some tweaking

  38. Re:Can it run Windows? by dosius · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not yet. I have run 3.00a in 286 mode, however, but it's highly crashprone. I think a lot of the devs don't think it's worth the bother aiming for Win3.x compatibility, but if it don't run Windows 3.1x, it ain't 100% compatible...

    Moll.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  39. Re:Why? by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, though. If it's not broken, why fix it? Sure, it might be fun to port all those old applications to a modern OS, but who's going to pay for it? If you have a standalone machine already doing *exactly* what you need it to do, reliably, I see no need to start messing with it.

    I use FreeDOS to run quicken via SSH in an xterm on Linux. It works well, too!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  40. Re:DOS is QDOS by swordfishBob · · Score: 1

    ... only the name "quick & dirty operating system" wasn't so marketable. Let's not call it "quick" :-)

    Opposite approach to Windows NT ("New Technology")

    --
    -- All your bass are below two Hz
  41. Thanks to FreeDOS by Tuqui · · Score: 1

    I still use it for old hardware drivers install and setting tools.

  42. Thank you by xYoni69x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I recently took an assembly programming college course. The course covered Intel x86 assembly and development in the DOS environment (DOS interrupts, etc.). (Yeah, it's outdated. Oh well.)

    The DOS emulator in Windows is not especially great. Particularly, direct access to the video buffer is not always emulated correctly on my machine, the timer interrupt is not precise (not well-synchronized with other processes in the background), and a few other annoyances.

    Instead of fighting and arguing with Windows, I took my old unused Pentium 1 and booted into FreeDOS on it, after making an ODIN (a one-disk distribution of FreeDOS) boot floppy. I did my work on that computer, and the emulation was perfect.

    Thanks to the FreeDOS project!

    (Now I gotta figure out what to do with that P1... I think I almost have to install Linux on it, being a Slashdot poster and all.)

    --
    void*x=(*((void*(*)())&(x=(void*)0xfdeb58)))();
  43. Game Platform too... by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1

    I can think of some games that were written in DOS that would work great on FreeDOS.
    Some of these games have their own grphics engines that work (speedy) better than Windows.

    1. Re:Game Platform too... by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

      I can think of some games that were written in DOS that would work great on FreeDOS. Some of these games have their own grphics engines that work (speedy) better than Windows.

      Yes, FreeDOS does work great as a game platform. At one point, I started a FreeDOS for Gamers page, but I haven't finished it (need to add EMM386 info.) Some of that info may help you.

  44. OT, but may be good to know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Just curious - how do you "inject" files into an ISO image? Pardon my ignorance.

    1. Re:OT, but may be good to know. by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      He probably mounts the ISO image file with loopback, and then you can inject files into the image as if it was any other directory/folder.

    2. Re:OT, but may be good to know. by jedrek · · Score: 2, Informative

      I use MagicISO.

    3. Re:OT, but may be good to know. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Copy the files, then remake the iso. The FreeDOS iso isn't very big.

  45. 680 Attack Sub by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1

    Can that session run that game?
    I'll be really fsking impressed if it does.

    1. Re:680 Attack Sub by jtev · · Score: 1

      Well, I was being sarcastic about the next question remark. I honestly don't know if it does. Probaly doens't in dosemu.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
  46. My guess... by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 2, Interesting
    On OS/2 for Windows (TM IBM) we hooked into known memory locations that Windows (MS) loaded into. (I wasn't the developer for this. That's why my explaination sucks.) This also explains why when MS added code for "fixes" it broke OS/2 for Windows.
    My point is Windows 3.11 probably did the same thing - it just "hooked" into DOS. In other words - the write byte to disk was at 0x3748443 (making this up)

    BTW - OS/2 was rewritten for the PPC NOT ported.

  47. Oh shit! by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1, Funny

    I signed a NDA! Now IBM is going to look up "MisanthropicProgram" in the white pages and send me a cease and desist! Fuck!

  48. Today's dumbish question by tekiegreg · · Score: 1

    How do you determine the "birthday" of a piece of software?

    1) When the idea was first thought up?
    2) The first diagrams designing key features were released?
    3) The first line of what was to become the OS was typed?
    4) Launch date of alpha version?
    5) Other?

    Just a thought...

    --
    ...in bed
    1. Re:Today's dumbish question by JamesP · · Score: 1

      How do you determine the "birthday" of a piece of software?

      For me it's when they bring the cake and blow the candles...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  49. Re:Can it run Windows? by pnot · · Score: 1

    Hell, who needs Windows when we've got SEAL? ;-)

  50. DOSemu by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've had better luck running games in newer versions of DOSemu. I'm running a 2.4 Ghz PIV and I couldn't get a decent framerate in anything I tried in DOSbox. DOSemu ran almost everything I threw at it acceptably. The biggie was Carmageddon.

    I'll keep trying new releases. Either it will improve or I'll come into a machine fast enough to emulate a P75 with it. The following specs seem to cover all the ground needed to play games before the Win95 era began.

    Pentium 75
    Soundblaster AWE32
    32 MB RAM
    Trio64/VESA/CGA/EGA graphics

    I'd estimate my current setup is closer to a P60 than a P75. The only fly in the ointment with DOSemu is that the OPL2/3 and wavetable stuff of the day may be spotty; you'll get sound effects but good luck with the music.

    1. Re:DOSemu by Wakkow · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Either it will improve or I'll come into a machine fast enough to emulate a P75 with it."

      Or find an old P75 in the trash and use it to play those games...

    2. Re:DOSemu by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Or find an old P75 in the trash and use it to play those games...

      Ah, but space is at a premium. When you have a wife and kid and don't live in a big place, there is only room for one machine. The emulator doesn't take up space and isn't old cranky hardware that will have to be maintained.

    3. Re:DOSemu by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Here's what I've got in my MAIN system:

      Pentium 233 MMX
      ESS ES1868 ISA
      96MB RAM
      nVidia TNT2 M64 32MB PCI (no, that wasn't stock, stock was some Cirrus Logic card and a Voodoo I)

      Why not just run a P75, AWE32, 32MB RAM, and a Trio64?

  51. Re:Legality of APIs by Flexagon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, not an API but a data structure, there apparently is for FAT, but it is under review.

  52. First release by wantedman · · Score: 1

    First public release is the best birthday of a piece of software.

    Mainly because every programmer has 6 ~ 8 programs that have been at least mostly thought out in their heads.

  53. Re:Legality of APIs by X3J11 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The only rights to DOS Seattle Computer Products retained was the right to sell copies with hardware ("Expert C Programming", Lindauer, pg.169). The licensed versions of DOS were OEM versions (using the OAK - OEM Adaptation Kit). Basically, they were just branded with the "big guys" name and copyright, and in some cases included code to contend with non-100% IBM PC compatible hardware.

  54. Hm. What about the GPL'd MS-DOS 7.10? by Illbay · · Score: 2, Interesting
    While there are many free operating systems out there, no other free DOS-compatible operating system exists.

    I guess it depends on what you mean by "free," but MS-DOS 7.10 was released (by Microsoft, of all evil empires) under the GNU Public License.

    It's about as good a DOS as you'll find--and installs much more readily (and with a bunch of neat-o options) than FreeDOS, at least in my experience.

    I always stick a little 30MB partition at the beginning of the first HD on my Linux systems and install MS-DOS 7.10 there so I can update hardware BIOSes, etc.

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    1. Re:Hm. What about the GPL'd MS-DOS 7.10? by kristaps.kaupe · · Score: 1

      but MS-DOS 7.10 was released (by Microsoft, of all evil empires) under the GNU Public License.

      Where did you get that MS-DOS 7.10 is released under GNU GPL?
    2. Re:Hm. What about the GPL'd MS-DOS 7.10? by absurdist · · Score: 2, Informative

      from the webpage... MS-DOS 7.10 is the best and the most up-to-date version of MS-DOS in the world, and it's also the most powerful, useful and high-performance DOS today (besides GNU GPLed FreeDOS). Thanks Microsoft! BESIDES GNU GPLED FREEDOS. NOWHERE on the page does it say that MS-DOS is released under the GPL. As if Bill would actually give anything away.

    3. Re:Hm. What about the GPL'd MS-DOS 7.10? by Bob+Nugget · · Score: 1

      MS-DOS 7.10 isn't an illegal hack - you can find it on the Windows 98 SE/ME install disc somewhere in the extras folder. Windows 95/8/ME discs also contain a version of Windows 3.11 used in the installer, which are stored in one of the cab files (precopy.cab or something, i don't remember).

      Depends if you can be bothered to install it like these guys or not...

  55. Emulators? Not VirtualPC by Trillan · · Score: 1

    Didn't work in VirtualPC last time I tried it (early February).

    1. Re:Emulators? Not VirtualPC by xC0000005 · · Score: 1

      Works fine on vpc on my machine. I captured the FreeDos ISO and booted right up, got warcraft working immediately. Good stuff.

      --
      www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
    2. Re:Emulators? Not VirtualPC by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Is it a p articular build? It crashed the emulator on mine.

    3. Re:Emulators? Not VirtualPC by xC0000005 · · Score: 1

      VPC 2004 here. What version did you try it on?

      --
      www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
    4. Re:Emulators? Not VirtualPC by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Virtual PC 6.1.1. I wasn't aware VPC 2004 had shipped yet...

  56. Beta 9 would have been a nice party gift by jensend · · Score: 2, Informative

    The last time FreeDOS had a real distribution release was two years ago. Looking forward to 1.0 is all well and good, but a Beta 9 (sans the ugly graphical installer of the latest "we'll call it RC even though we would never consider actually releasing this as B9" releases, perhaps?) would certainly be nice.

  57. USB Support? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone have USB support for DOS?

    1. Re:USB Support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, yes, Cypress has a very good USB mass storage driver:
      DUSE driver

      and there are a couple of others if you look.

  58. NTFS and USB support! by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Very interesting. What is the origin of MS-DOS 7.10? The web page says it has NTFS and USB support!

    1. Re:NTFS and USB support! by Knifethrower · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its an illegal Chinese hack. Works pretty good. Love their Win3.11 on a floppy, makes a great rescue disk.

  59. Re:Legality of APIs by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

    Novell? PC-DOS was IBM. You mean DR-DOS, which is the latest version of CP/M, and is now at 8.0, and is now owned by DeviceLogics (7.01 was the last version by Novell - it was sold to Caldera, who is now known as SCO, Caldera spun Lineo off, and Lineo got it, and then DeviceLogics finally updated it.)

  60. ReactOS the next wave by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Say what you want about FreeDOS, and Free software in general. But FreeDOS has won. No one need ever pay for MSDOS, DRDOS, or PCDOS again. Those programs are dead. Surprisingly, a 25 year old operating system (even older if you count predecessors like CP/M, TRSDOS, and VTOS) still has uses.

    While not 1000x better, as a previous AC posted, ReactOS is taking up where the FreeDOS project left off. If completed, it will replace more Windows and OS/2 systems than it's nearest free competitor.

    --
    Have you Meta Moderated t
    1. Re:ReactOS the next wave by bhima · · Score: 1
      FreeDOS is great and I do use it, often.

      But the DR.DOS guys have their niche and seem to be doing quite well!

      Having said all of that a Free Win98SE also would be useful , I suppose.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  61. Re:DOS is Swedish for "DUHHHHHH" by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

    Would that be "Do" or "Dass"? :)

  62. KillDisk by ryen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    for a moment, i kinda laughed to myself saying "who the hell would use DOS still"...
    yet at that very moment i had the lowly task of wiping hard drives clean and was using a utility called KillDisk.

    i i popped it in and to my amazement FreeDOS began loading program files ;)

  63. Re:Can it run Windows? by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

    "Hell, who needs Windows when we've got SEAL? ;-)"

    To run old Win16 programs? Can SEAL do that?

  64. Spinrite by detritus. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If there's one program that I have used continuiously over the years to diagnose hard drive problems is Spinrite. I was especially pleased with Steve Gibson's commitment to keeping the program DOS-based. There were alot of diagnostic utilities that ran off DOS that I wish were still updated to support modern hardware. Hopefully others will follow Gibson's lead :)

  65. AS400? Eeeep! by Rassleholic · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for : FreeAS400

    I had a class on AS400 once. The only thing I can clearly remember about it was when the teacher was giving us the answers to our in-class assignment (as we were doing it) and was yelling at us for not paying attention.

    --
    Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
  66. Flash BIOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I use MS DOS 6.22 only for flashing BIOS. Could one use FreeDOS for the same goal?

    1. Re:Flash BIOS by WoTG · · Score: 1

      Probably. I've used it once to flash a MB. It was a bootable CD too. YMMV.

    2. Re:Flash BIOS by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Yes. In fact, a lot of the BIOS flash disks that PC & motherboard suppliers put up on their support pages actually use FreeDOS these days.

  67. Try this: by tehdaemon · · Score: 1

    Just looked at DOSBox and the screenshots for the cvs version look promising if you want to run win 3.11

    --
    Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
  68. DOSBox by mattdm · · Score: 1

    I don't know about DOSemu/FreeDOS, but DOSBox says it can. (Well, for 688 Attack Sub -- dunno if the +8 means anything.)

  69. Re:Legality of APIs by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2, Informative

    In 1986, Seattle Computer was going out of business and planned to sell it's right to print DOS to a large vendor like Compaq. This lead to a lawsuit, and eventually a settlement where Microsoft bought them out for about $1 Mill. ("Hard Drive", Wallace & Erickson, 1992)

    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  70. I want to use USB CD-ROM drives and hard drives by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    I would never have guessed this would be modded as funny. I want to use USB CD-ROM drives and hard drives during times when that stupid x#!%$# XP fails. I was trying to load XP on a laptop that has no CD-ROM drive, and found that XP likes to self-destruct under those circumstances.

  71. It runs AVSIM51 for 8051 dev work by ChocoboKnight · · Score: 1

    So it's great, with wineconsole the simulator AVSIM51 did not work at all. Under FreeDOS it worked perfectly. I had to use AVSIM51 as one subject in school required it for some assignements. FreeDOS helped me not having to use a Windows box for doing this work. Happy birthday!

  72. Try a FAT partition on the hard drive... by WoTG · · Score: 1

    An alternative that I used when I first used FreeDOS (actually, possibly the only time that I've used FreeDOS) was to use a FreeDOS bootable ISO and keep the flash update file on a FAT32 partition from which FreeDOS had no problems reading. This makes it easy to use the same boot CD for whatever Flash updates are required in the future.

  73. tried those by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    I tried that, and was unable to make it work. The driver apparently is hardware specific.

    1. Re:tried those by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I take it these are the same drivers ? http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10215

  74. Mmm.... I'll feed the troll! by solios · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tell that to Dell, yo. They ship FreeDOS on some of their boxes.

  75. Yay for free DOS utilities! by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Slightly off topic, but I just had a bunch of free DOS (or FreeDOS, as it turns out) utilities save quite a bit of my time tonight, and reading this story reminded me of that experience.

    Since our church uses three programs that don't run on Slackware, I had to replace it with Win 2k Professional, which is decently stable and fits our needs. Well, I had one XP boot disk that booted into Windows ME (shudder), no utilities, and no way to access two CD-ROM drives that I needed to install 2k from.

    To the rescue? Nothing less than Free FDISK and a Win98SE floppy with generic IDE drivers.

    One MySQL client and a Win 2k installation later, and everything looks on track. Who says you don't need DOS anymore? (ahem... Microsoft...)

    Thanks for another rescue, folks at FreeDOS!

  76. Re:No I didn't RTFA by irokitt · · Score: 1

    I believe the non-acronym term would be "free bandwidth and nethwork configuration test." How many badly-configured Apache setups have been discovered in the wake of a good slashdotting?

    --
    If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  77. thank you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    very much, and keep up the good work.

  78. Free, as in DOS by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    "FreeDOS is ideal for anyone who wants to bundle a version of DOS without having to pay a royalty for use of DOS."

    Wait.. People actually pay for DOS?? But that's like paying for Windows... o_O'
    People actually DO that????

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  79. The DOS Legacy by AVryhof · · Score: 3, Informative

    DOS is a true RTOS. If you want mission critical and fast, DOS does it. It can boot up in seconds, it's fault tolerant (reboot=fixed) and had full direct hardware access.

    I have run a lot of operating systems. QNX claims to be an RTOS, Windows CE Claims to be an RTOS, neither are as responsive as DOS.

    There is no stupid hour glass in DOS. Batch files make automation a piece of cake, and you don't need a degree in Computer Science to write one.

    There are players for all your wonderful media types available. There are also a number of classic game emulators (Genesyst, Nesticle, etc.) available as well.

    So, next time that video poker game sitting on the counter at your local bar goes kaput, just remember, it's still running DOS.... turn it off (unplug it?) and turn it back on, you'll doo the next poor drunk a big favor.

    Thank you, have a nice day.

    1. Re:The DOS Legacy by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      DOS is a true RTOS.

      Really? Where can I get the upper-bound response time datasheet? If you mean "quick and responsive" (which it darn well ought to be) then I'd agree. However, I've never heard any evidence of it being a real RTOS (which has an exact technical definition).

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:The DOS Legacy by Derleth · · Score: 1
      Batch files make automation a piece of cake, and you don't need a degree in Computer Science to write one.

      Translation: They are just barely competent at scripting simple tasks, but don't expect them to respond to failures (as DCL can) or implement any form of looping (as dead-simple vanilla sh can).

      I agree that DOS is the best solution for some tasks. I even agree that DOS batch is good for some things. But when I see buzzwords, I react.

      --
      How can you use my intestines as a gift? -Actual Hong Kong subtitle.
    3. Re:The DOS Legacy by AVryhof · · Score: 1

      DOS Batch files can do looping just fine, and Errorlevels are made so you can respond to errors. You simply execute your command, tes the error level and go to the appropriate label. There are also do and while loops in DOS Batch files.

  80. Re:64 bit support by kristaps.kaupe · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wonder how freedos will deal with 64 bit CPUs. I just read that Intel's 64bit CPU will no longer support virtual x86 sessions anymore. So this means no more DOS. Will FreeDOS deal with it?

    Intel IA64 chips can emulate x86, AMD64 (and Intel's clones) supports x86 natively. Unless you enter long mode, it will act as fast 16-bit/32-bit CPU.
  81. Hey guys, stolen code.. by adeyadey · · Score: 1

    Dear FreeDOS community,

    It has recently come to my notice that your code includes thousands of lines of code stolen from SCOunix, including my well-known malloc routine, and such classic code as "a=0;" (US pat:1269169,"Assignment of null to a variable").

    How could you! From now on, every user of FreeDOS [(C)(TM) SCO (patent pending)] is required to buy an SCO end user license, a snip at $699.

    Yours lovingly

    Darl McBride

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
  82. Different, and looks like they will work. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Wow! Great! Those are different drivers, and the explanation looks MUCH better than for all other DOS USB drivers I've seen.

  83. But, but, but... by Stupid+Dog · · Score: 1

    it's still limited to 640kB, after 10 years!
    </irony>

    1. Re:But, but, but... by kristaps.kaupe · · Score: 1

      It is not correct to say that DOS is limited to 640k.

      1. You can make more conventional memory than 640 kb (by using A0000-B7FFFF memory range in CGA/EGA/VGA text mode)
      2. You can load TSR program into UMB (maps on free memory ranges below 1 MB) and HMA (1024k-1088k range)
      3. Most of today's programs knows how to use XMS (provided by FDXMS/HIMEM) and EMS (provided by EMM386) memory
      4. 32-bit protected mode programs can manage whole memory if neither XMS nor EMS are present

      For more information: FreeDOS Technote #202

  84. Re:No I didn't RTFA by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

    Actually, one of the links (FreeDOS.org) was to a list of mirrors. This was intentional, to prevent swamping the host provider with too much traffic. The last time we were slashdotted, I set up this page so that visitors could hit mirror sites instead of the main one (if the main site became slow). -jh

  85. Perl for dos by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    Yes Virginia, there is perl for dos. Its not easy to compile, and some modules just aren't worth it. But it can be done. And let me tell you, its worth it. You can bash perl all you like, but compared with the other options in dos, its beautiful.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  86. WABI, from your friends at SCO by wde · · Score: 1
    SURE! And I hear these folks are really interested in supporting the Linux community!

    http://www.caldera.com/support/docs/wabi/

  87. Re:Nice try by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Actually WNT is one letter on from VMS, and guess what Windows NT is based on?

  88. This brings back memories by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    I used to like DOS. Sure, it was limited, but it was still a good OS for my olde 8088. You could get just about any software imaginable for it, and it was extremely low overhead.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.