Slashdot Mirror


Life After MS-DOS: FreeDOS Keeps On Kicking

angry tapir writes "FreeDOS — the drop-in, open source replacement for MS-DOS — was started after Microsoft announced that starting from Windows 95, DOS would play a background role at best for users. Almost two decades later, FreeDOS has survived and, as its creator explains in this interview, is still being actively developed, despite achieving its initial aim of an MS-DOS compatible OS, which quite frankly is somewhat amazing."

255 comments

  1. Not surprising by masternerdguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To recreate something is to understand it, and msdos is worth understanding. Tons of legacy applications still depend on dos and are still in use! This is a step towards long term support of those applications.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It would work well in VirtualBox, if it weren't for a stupid VirtualBox bug.

    2. Re:Not surprising by marcello_dl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only legacy- I had updated my aspire 5720's bios to suppress a bug which prevented 64bit linux using freedos because I had already got rid of the Vista installation (30 minutes after started using it, I think 8 will last less). Worked flawlessly but I acknowledge it's a risky procedure.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    3. Re:Not surprising by hobarrera · · Score: 4, Informative

      Legacy applications?
      I've a 2010 intel motherboard with an integrated nic that reports "bad eeprom checksum" every time there's a power failure.
      Intel only provides a DOS utility to re-flash the firmware, if it weren't for FreeDOS, I'd have a useless nic (on a mobo with no free PCIs, BTW).

      Lots of hardware vendors still provide DOS-only BIOS updated, and similar utilities, regrettably, so FreeDOS still has plenty of uses - though not for the average user.

    4. Re:Not surprising by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have clients who still are using systems, like sales and inventory sales databases, running on DOS and now using FreeDOS.

      The owners don't want to replace something that works for new and shiny.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    5. Re:Not surprising by rbprbp · · Score: 2

      Not only legacy: for BIOS/firmware updates it's often the only choice. There is flashrom (http://flashrom.org/Flashrom), for flashing from within Linux, but I don't dare using it.

      --
      They're there in their room. You're on your own.
    6. Re:Not surprising by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      The ones I'm familiar with, such as SeaTools, just use DOS as bootable environment. I don't see any real reason they couldn't have used Linux or even a light version of XP if there were no modern DOS. Where there's a competent programmer and a problem, there's a solution.

    7. Re:Not surprising by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Real Time Systems: a certain PLC vendor (won't name whom, but they're American, and huge) only provides 16-bit drivers to one of their backplane products, if things haven't changed in 3 years, and I bet they haven't. If it wasn't for FreeDOS, third party licensors would be screwed. With FreeDOS and a real time ASIC, these licensors can create products that work with the main vendor.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    8. Re:Not surprising by Synerg1y · · Score: 0

      -100 to innovation & the tech curve...

      +100 to lazy / incompetent IT must be your point.

      I won't bother going into detail on why you should update your systems, but do let me know which bank it is so I can ensure I stay as far away as possible from these "owners" who have the foresight of mole.

    9. Re:Not surprising by Synerg1y · · Score: 0

      All motherboard manufacturers provide a way to update bios from within bios, even from within windows if you can install / download the updater and trust it. With more recent boards, it's even impossible to brick them. So where does FreeDOS factor into all this? Do note that running apps at boot using FreeDOS and using FreeDOS as an OS are very different things. For example: Ghost boots in DOS, but you're not using DOS, you're using ghost.

    10. Re:Not surprising by mvar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I second that. Years ago I worked for a company where we installed-supported logistics & accounting programs from a specific vendor. The main software, the vendor's "best-seller" was DOS-based. When they released the newest, Windows-only version which completely changed the user experience by the introduction of the mouse, most customers went nuts upon hearing that the DOS version was going EOL. They were used to the keyboard and having to re-learn everything and memorize where and what to click in order to go to the next field or print an invoice was considered unnecessary by the majority of the customers. The vendor eventually had to recall the EOL and to this day they still support & release updates for this decades-old software.

    11. Re:Not surprising by idontgno · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least the bug has a work-around fix:

      The fix

      FreeDOS developer Eric Auer has provided a fix that corrects the buggy behaviour of the VirtualBox PCI BIOS. It can be downloaded at:

      http://lazybrowndog.net/freedos/files/vbox-fix.zip

      His solution is a small TSR program that comes with new handlers for two PCI BIOS scanning functions, that make them scan only existing PCI bus numbers. VBOX-FIX.COM is supposed to be loaded in AUTOEXEC.BAT. The program checks if it is running inside a VirtualBox guest and loads only if it can verify that. Eric Auer writes:

      It does up to two PCI scans by vendor:device ID (int 1a.b102 calls) to check for two VirtualBox specific PCI devices. Only if at least one of them is present, the faster-on-VirtualBox int 1a handler for int 1a.b102 and b103 (scan by vendor:device or class- subclass-interface) is installed as a TSR. The VB vendor:device ID values are 80ee:beef and 80ee:cafe.

      VBOX-FIX.COM needs 416 bytes of DOS memory and can be loaded high.

      Gosh. "...can be loaded high.". I got a little tickle of nostalgia thinking about that. All those wonderful "load high and remain resident" hacks.

      Wait. Why is this good?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    12. Re:Not surprising by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      OrCAD never recovered from the transition from dos to windows.

      The mouse thing got better with time, but the killer was that they broke keyboard macros. What replaced them (VB script) wasn't fit for purpose. A decade of carefully crafted tools to auto generate symbols from libraries got thrown in the toilet.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    13. Re:Not surprising by war4peace · · Score: 0

      I read the page and there's a fix for it. So... your issue was?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    14. Re:Not surprising by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I read the page and there's a fix for it. So... your issue was?

      Yes, there's a workaround, but wouldn't it be better to fix the bug in the first place?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:Not surprising by hduff · · Score: 2

      I read the page and there's a fix for it. So... your issue was?

      I suspect that, given that the bug can be fixed, the VirtualBox devs should fix their own code and not rely on the kindness of strangers.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    16. Re:Not surprising by Forty-3 · · Score: 1

      Dosbox

      --
      http://tinyurl.com/42geekcode
    17. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You won't go into it because you can't go into it.

    18. Re:Not surprising by Synerg1y · · Score: 1
    19. Re:Not surprising by Pinhedd · · Score: 1

      The ones I'm familiar with, such as SeaTools, just use DOS as bootable environment. I don't see any real reason they couldn't have used Linux or even a light version of XP if there were no modern DOS. Where there's a competent programmer and a problem, there's a solution.

      They use it because a basic DOS distribution is nothing more than a filesystem driver and command line interpreter. There's no hardware abstraction and this allows programs to access device buses without issue, or risk exposing their hardware's service mode to malicious code.

    20. Re:Not surprising by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Honestly, it's all about the ROI here. If you have 100 users which are affected by an obscure bug which has a workaround already, and at the same time have maybe 100 other more important bugs to fix, guess what's going to happen with the first bug?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    21. Re:Not surprising by war4peace · · Score: 1

      "VBOX-FIX.COM needs 416 bytes of DOS memory and can be loaded high."
      You whine about 416 bytes? Even in MS-DOS age this was a speck. Not to mention you can just suspend the guest OS instead of rebooting it.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    22. Re:Not surprising by davydagger · · Score: 2

      virtualbox is great because it runs well ontop of other modern opperating systems without real virtualization, in shear emulation.

      Dosbox, a complete dos machine emulator that utilizes FreeDOS, is available on many platforms to include windows, android, and GNU/Linux.

      it makes DOS era programs accessable for the modern computing era.

    23. Re:Not surprising by morcego · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Honestly, it's all about the ROI here. If you have 100 users which are affected by an obscure bug which has a workaround already, and at the same time have maybe 100 other more important bugs to fix, guess what's going to happen with the first bug?

      A bug is a bug, and you can never be sure of all ramifications. If it is not important, remove the code. If it is important enough to keep, then fix it.

      --
      morcego
    24. Re:Not surprising by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      DOS has no abstractions or protected more or anything else that gets in the way of direct hardware access. This is usually a bad thing (because it's insecure), but it better for something that needs direct hardware access.

    25. Re:Not surprising by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Most, not all manufacturers.

      As a side note, providing a windows-only updater could be bad for them. If there's an issue that REQUIRES a firmware update, and people need a $50 software to install it, I'm pretty sure they'll be in trouble.

    26. Re:Not surprising by musicon · · Score: 1

      It's not just legacy systems -- there are still current systems being deployed using FreeDOS, such as a few of the fast-food drive-through order screens, elevator news systems, etc.

    27. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw TSR and got the same feeling

    28. Re:Not surprising by war4peace · · Score: 2

      You can also not be sure of all ramifications if you fix it. Maybe the possible breakages from fixing it would affect more people than you would make happy after fixing it.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    29. Re:Not surprising by pspahn · · Score: 1

      PCI-DSS compliant environments are a pretty good candidate for an upgrade.

      "We don't want to upgrade because this one just works" goes right out of the window when you tell a business owner that they could lose their livelihood because of an unfortunately timed audit.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    30. Re:Not surprising by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Not to mention DOS makes a kick ass boot environment for many low level diagnostic tools,there is everything from virus scanners to CPU testers that run in DOS so having a free version is quite a nice thing to have.

      So between this and DOSBox frankly I don't think we'll have any problems with using legacy or low level apps in the future. Now if only someone will come up with a "Win9XBox" as there is plenty of games that ran great in that OS that are unusable on anything newer and the Win9X hardware is dying out now thanks to the shitty caps.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    31. Re:Not surprising by Zemran · · Score: 2

      There is often good reason for staying with a (Free)DOS based system. In real time systems you can write something that actually works but if you put it on XP or Linux etc. it no longer works in real time and that can be a big problem in control systems. Most of the added complexity in XP etc. is to make the UI pretty and if you do not want that UI then why tolerate that added complexity and additional probability of failure. POS systems may be called real time but they are not as real time as machine control systems where waiting for the OS can have serious consequences. No system is perfect but allow a good analyst to have all the options and a good reason to choose the best one for the job rather than coming to the stupid conclusion that one answer should fit all.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    32. Re:Not surprising by Zemran · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      For what it is worth -

      Turbo C++ v1.01 from Borland. Released as a freeware by Borland.

      So you can have a free C++ learning platform for students.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    33. Re:Not surprising by Nyder · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...

      Gosh. "...can be loaded high.". I got a little tickle of nostalgia thinking about that. All those wonderful "load high and remain resident" hacks.

      Wait. Why is this good?

      640k is enough for everyone!

      --
      Be seeing you...
    34. Re:Not surprising by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "To recreate something is to understand it, and msdos is worth understanding."

      Except they aren't really "re-creating" anything. DOS-compatible replacements have been around since the DOS days!

      That is to say: pre-Windows, when DOS was "the" operating system. There were at least several widely-available replacements, which were often faster and better (look up DR-DOS).

    35. Re:Not surprising by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Funny

      I saw TSR and got the same feeling

      Pfft. TSR sucked after that lawsuit with Gygax's wife.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    36. Re:Not surprising by devent · · Score: 1

      Makes perfectly sense. Software do not expire. The hardware can break, but software do not expire. So why would they replace a perfectly good working solution, just to gain what? Not needed mouse support?

      The vendor is at fault for not remembering the most important feature of a software: consistency. If he would have, why not re-create the DOS interface, with the same keyboard shortcuts, but added mouse support and a little polish? I think most of the customers would appreciate the increased resolution, from 80x25 to 1920px (bigger font, better for the eyes, or more information).

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    37. Re:Not surprising by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Why should he update his systems if they work? Usually, the main reason things don't work is that the maintenance support goes away, but in this case, since FreeDOS is open source, they can keep using it as long as the systems don't quit. Same thing for system designers - if they have a working design of something, why re-spin it? Not everybody wants to or does a cost reduction every 18 months, which is why you have the above example of 16 bit drivers for one of their backplane products.

    38. Re:Not surprising by unixisc · · Score: 1

      When did they do that? I thought that Borland spun off their dev tools to a company called Codegear

    39. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I know about that bug, but I just 'Save System State' instead of 'Power Down'. Now I can return to Quake 1 right where I left.

    40. Re:Not surprising by Alioth · · Score: 1

      But only systems that touch cardholder data in scope. If the heritage system never can touch cardholder data, it's out of scope for a PCI-DSS audit.

    41. Re:Not surprising by uncle+slacky · · Score: 1

      A while ago - here's the link to Turbo C++ 1.01: http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/26014

      Other software in the archive (Turbo Pascal v1.0, v3.2, v5.5 & Turbo C version 2.01) is listed here:http://zyztems.myfreeforum.org/archive/antique-borland-compilers-free-from-the-edn-museum__o_t__t_100.html

      --
      Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.
    42. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bug is a bug, and you can never be sure of all ramifications. If it is not important, remove the code. If it is important enough to keep, then fix it.

      Some bugs are quite well defined and fixing them is more likely to break something else if you have limited testing resources.

    43. Re:Not surprising by cusco · · Score: 1

      At least as of a couple of years ago the third-largest restaurant point of sale system still used FreeDOS and NetBEUI for their terminals and comms back to the server.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    44. Re:Not surprising by wwphx · · Score: 1

      My favorite example of this was Foxbase. It was such a faithful copy of dBase III that they copied the bugs, because the bugs in dBase had well-known workarounds, and to fix the bug would be to break production code.

      Sometimes I miss dBase/Foxbase, then I wake up and go back to SQL Server.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  2. That's cool, I guess ... by 0racle · · Score: 5, Funny

    The graphics suck though.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    1. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by ProzacPatient · · Score: 5, Funny

      Still looks better then Windows 8 though

    2. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Nothing but squares? They look fairly similar to me.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Windows 8 looks suprisingly like Windows 1.

    4. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by sootman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agreed. Just check out this screenshot:

      C:\>_

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    5. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      Whoa, what command prompt code did you use to get your command line in inverse color? Mine's the standard white on black.

    6. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Informative

      If it works like MS DOS, you need to have the ANSI.SYS driver loaded, and can then just use the ANSI code for inverse video: $E[7m (where $E generates an escape character)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by Dahan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whoa, what command prompt code did you use to get your command line in inverse color? Mine's the standard white on black.

      If ANSI.SYS is loaded, PROMPT $e[7m$p$g$e[m

    8. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by rvw · · Score: 1

      The graphics suck though.

      I disagree

    9. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      The logo, or the retarded tiles-based Metro start screen?

    10. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by Nimey · · Score: 1, Informative

      Bah, too fancy. My prompt:

      set prompt=Master, what is thy bidding$_in directory $p$g?

      which makes a prompt of:

      Master, what is thy bidding
      in directory C:\DOS>?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    11. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, that is friggin' cool.

      Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
      Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

      V:\>set prompt=Master, what is thy bidding$_in directory $p$g?

      Master, what is thy bidding
      in directory V:\>?

    12. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like windows 8 bit, amirite?

    13. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Windows 8 looks suprisingly like Windows 1.

      ROFL! I never thought about it until I read that.

      • Boxy icons? Check!
      • Can only see one application at a time? Check!
      • Monochromatic background for the default? Check!

      Thanks to you, Windows 8 has finally made me smile.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    14. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Whoa, what command prompt code did you use to get your command line in inverse color? Mine's the standard white on black.

      Plug your monitor into the outlet backwards. All you have to do is lop off the redundant third pin. Simple hardware hack.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    15. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Just check out this screenshot:

      C:\>_

      If you miss it, you can set your shell prompt to something more nostalgic:
      PS1='C:$(echo ${PWD//\//\\\} | tr "[:lower:]" "[:upper:]" | sed -e"s/\\([^\\]\\{6\\}\\)[^\\]\\{2,\\}/\\1~1/g" ) >'

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    16. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! That was in the dos for dummies book if I recall. I changed the command prompt on my parent's computer in a similar fashion :)

    17. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      You do recall. :P

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    18. Re:That's cool, I guess ... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      You forgot: Completely useless

  3. That's awesome! by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 3, Funny

    If only I hadn't used all my 5.25" floppies trying to decapitate attacking zombies...

    1. Re:That's awesome! by eksith · · Score: 1

      Soft targets eh?

      --
      If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
    2. Re:That's awesome! by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      admittedly, he said "trying"...

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    3. Re:That's awesome! by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

      If only I hadn't used all my 5.25" floppies trying to decapitate attacking zombies...

      Ha! you call that a floppy disk? [pulls out and brandishes an 8" floppy disk]

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:That's awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. 8" floppy disks are the way to go for decapitating zombies.

    5. Re:That's awesome! by majesticmerc · · Score: 1

      Best I got is a 3.5" disk, hard.

      :(

    6. Re:That's awesome! by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Funny

      12" (30 cm) laserdiscs, can even kill non-zombie with those mothers.

    7. Re:That's awesome! by vistic · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to figure out if you're referring to Shawn of the Dead, and mistakenly thinking that the "Blue Monday" New Order record was a real 5.25" floppy disk.

    8. Re:That's awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS-DOS never had support for 8" floppies, though. You'll have to go back to CP/M or equivalent-dated operating systems for that.

      I've got a Kaypro in the basement if you want it.

    9. Re:That's awesome! by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

      No... the 1/2inch tape reel cases. Those things flew like deadly super-frisbees that even oddjob would have have loved.

      (Not that I EVER did this almost every day in a super secret government server room many moons ago....)

      Image of what I'm talking about: http://i.imgur.com/phS0PGo.jpg

      For younglings, you put these in to them for safe keeping: http://i.imgur.com/GntVSek.jpg

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    10. Re:That's awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      8" Floppy? Soft or hard sectored?

    11. Re:That's awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always about size, isn't it? [Pulls out 3.5"]. Damn.

    12. Re:That's awesome! by cusco · · Score: 1

      The aluminum reel on a 9-track tape spool would fly the entire length of the parking lot from the roof of our building. In 1998 I took a job with AAA Washington as their System Operator, and all of our data transfers were still on 9-track tapes. The FedEx charges per month were astronomical. I generally had to explain to people on the other end what a 9-track tape was by saying, "Remember the old scifi movies with the computer that that the big tape spools on the front? That's what we're sending you every month. Can we do this some other way?" The response was generally, "Oh my god. Let me transfer you to X-person." By the time that I had left two years later I had managed to convert them all to modem or encrypted zip files (except American Express, which would only take unzipped unencrypted text files to their FTP site, which you logged into with a 4-number password and no username).

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  4. Argh! Fluff piece! by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 0

    Great, development is ongoing. What, exactly? What sort of interesting things have happened in the development? What sort of 'bugs that have become features' had to be included?

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  5. Dosbox or freedos by Boronx · · Score: 1

    What's better for retro gaming: DosBox, or a virtual machine running FreeDos?

    1. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's better for retro gaming: DosBox, or a virtual machine running FreeDos?

      Dosbox.

    2. Re:Dosbox or freedos by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Neither, UAE is the one to use.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DosBox, no need to worry about hardware I think.

    4. Re:Dosbox or freedos by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Last I looked, FreeDOS couldn't slow down the environment to emulate old hardware. This is basically a requirement for many old games, and is the reason I use DosBox.

    5. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Parafilmus · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can have both!

      Install FreeDos in the c:\dos folder of your DosBox machine. You'll get most of FreeDos' new functionality, while keeping the useful features of DosBox.

      see here: http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/TOOLS:FreeDOS

    6. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Funny

      In prehistoric times, when I upgraded from my olde 8088 to a speedy new 286, several of my games became nearly unplayable.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    7. Re:Dosbox or freedos by jythie · · Score: 1

      I actually had the same problem with Mechwarrior 3. Its physics engine did crazy things if the computer was too fast.... I suspect the problem of games that behave oddly or unplayably on hardware far faster then their developer had access too will be an ongoing on.

    8. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Eyezen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then just (de)press the turbo button!!! ;-)

    9. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

      What's better for retro gaming?

      Kega Fusion, Snes9X, Nestopia, Stella, MAME, KiGB...

    10. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Control Break still won't work correctly.

    11. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try dosemu, its even better for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOSEMU

      RPM downloads for all platforms:
      http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/17/i386/repoview/dosemu.html

    12. Re:Dosbox or freedos by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Neither, UAE is the one to use.

      Unrecoverable Application Error? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      DosBox will be better because it's specifically built for retro gaming. It supports all the hardware needed for gaming including joystick, mouse, soundcard, and networking. Many years ago DosBox was too buggy to use, but I loaded the latest build about a year ago and it is awesome. Everything just works. This weekend my brother and I did some Doom2 Co-op using IPX tunneling, and it worked flawlessly.

    14. Re:Dosbox or freedos by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      what's better: DOS Box or sex with a mare?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    15. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was one of them Arkanoid?

    16. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used DOS Box. Please tell us what sex with a mare is like, so we can compare.

    17. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A software vs. sex argument. Well duh! Which one would you choose?

    18. Re:Dosbox or freedos by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      what's better: DOS Box or sex with a mare?

      That depends on whether you are a gamer or a donkey.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    19. Re:Dosbox or freedos by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      United Arab Emirates.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    20. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is /. ... clearly, everyone here has chosen the software.

    21. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither, UAE is the one to use.

      Unrecoverable Application Error? :-)

      No silly, UAE is the United Aerospace Corporation logo. They were a total monopoly, as evidence by UAE stamped on every crate in the original Doom. Eventually, two competitors appeared, the MIXOM and MOXIM corporations. Their names were problematic, however, as Mars shipping personel would
      get the stencils reversed, so a MIXOM container could be from MOXIM and vice-versa. It was a real mess up there.

    22. Re:Dosbox or freedos by FreonTrip · · Score: 1

      In my experience, DOSbox or DOSEMU with FreeDOS utilities and userland apps. A VM running FreeDOS will run pretty poorly in a 64-bit OS due to all the trapping and translation of 16-bit code, and DOS hasn't been a major target of optimizations for most virtualization solutions. If you're just planning to play video games, it would be foolish not to try DOSbox first.

    23. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FreeDOS can also be installed in Linux DOSEMU :

      http://www.linuxgoodies.com/freedos.html

    24. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Hatta · · Score: 2

      The best is an actual machine running DOS. A PIII/440BX system is easy to pick up, and great for DOS games. It's fast enough to run anything, and still has ISA slots for a sound blaster. BIOS options to disable L1/L2 cache will slow it to about the speed of a 386, perfect for Wing Commander. With one of these systems you can play just about any DOS game except the really early 8088 games that require a 4.77mhz processor for timing.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    25. Re:Dosbox or freedos by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      would you guys quit whorsing around?

    26. Re:Dosbox or freedos by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      100% agreed... but ZSNES and BSNES are both also excellent emulators for the Super NES. Gens+ is also an interesting choice for Genesis, but admittedly not my favorite. I'd also add Stella for Atari 2600 games.

      If you want to take a trip down classic emulator memory lane, try out Nesticle, Genecyst, and the original Kega 98. They're old, no longer maintained and far inferior to the latest emulators, but they are what I first used in the late 1990s and early 2000s. They were awesome for their time and required very little processing power.

    27. Re:Dosbox or freedos by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      Duh, forget my Stella addition... somehow I passed that up when reading the original post, it was already covered...

    28. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Zordak · · Score: 2

      You can have both!

      Install FreeDos in the c:\dos folder of your DosBox machine. You'll get most of FreeDos' new functionality, while keeping the useful features of DosBox.

      see here: http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/TOOLS:FreeDOS

      The problem is I need to find a good DOS-based virtual machine that can run DosBox from FreeDOS on DosBox.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    29. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hunt around - there used to be TSR programs that would eat CPU cycles to slow everything down so one could play old games.

    30. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Nimey · · Score: 1

      There are programs which can do this for you. They basically set up an idle loop and can be tuned to the speed you need.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    31. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bochs or Qemu work under HX http://japheth.de/HX.html
      You might need an LFN TSR, though.

    32. Re:Dosbox or freedos by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a developer, I can say no, that "problem" was just a dumb way to do physics, and it's been fixed forever to anyone who wasn't a moron, even in the AT/XT days. Back in the day we just checked wall clock time / CMOS ticks, you know, the ones we used to modulate PC speakers to make different frequencies, that's what we used to update game state and prevent binding physics to CPU speed. Today, RAM is plentiful, so I do physics state "commits" in fixed step sizes, say 30hz or 60hz, and interpolate from the last physics state to the temporary state that's being rendered.

      If enough time has passed to process the next full physics step, then it's processed and committed. Otherwise I reset state to last commit, and process the partial physics step, but do not trigger any important events like player death in the temp step. If the system is too slow to run a partial physics step without immediately requiring another full physics step then the partial steps are not processed and the game rendering updates screen positions only after the physics step can be computed. This is important for deterministic physics, for demo replay and also for synchronized network games because:
      UpdatePhysics( 20ms ); UpdatePhysics( 20ms );
      is not always equivalent to:
      UpdatePhysics( 40ms );
      Due to a number of factors, especially rounding errors.
      UpdatePhysics( elapsedTime );
      Is the worst on fast systems -- those very small fractions of time lead to physics explosions -- not the particle effect kind, the bounce off an object through the floor and to the other side of the universe kind.

      For comparison:
      Here is my rope physics with a fixed physics step size frames.
      Here is the same physics running with actual elapsed time each frame.
      The latter comments mention tiny jiggles propagating into a frenzy. Those tiny movements coupled with very small elapsed times create the physics explosion.

    33. Re:Dosbox or freedos by jafac · · Score: 1

      I still need it to install Bios patches.

      yes, yes. I shall now bear the cone of shame. :(

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    34. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Nimey · · Score: 1

      MS-DOS, not that abortion known as Amiga DOS. :P

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    35. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have both!

      Install FreeDos in the c:\dos folder of your DosBox machine. You'll get most of FreeDos' new functionality, while keeping the useful features of DosBox.

      see here: http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/TOOLS:FreeDOS

      The problem is I need to find a good DOS-based virtual machine that can run DosBox from FreeDOS on DosBox.

      /yodawg

    36. Re:Dosbox or freedos by kamikaze_late2party · · Score: 1

      I had one for Dos called TARDIS

    37. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Lord_Naikon · · Score: 1

      Some old games (duck tales comes to mind) just didn't care about the the time and always ran their physics/render loop as fast as possible, with a fixed time step. Later, games (Classic Unreal for instance) started to use the RDTSC instruction that came with the Pentium, which subsequently lead to problems on SMP systems and/or CPUs with power saving features, due to a non-constant tick rate. I suspect Mech Warror 3 also uses it. Microsoft "fixed" that by introducing the QueryPerformanceCounter() API. Funnily enough, because a cheap high frequency time counter is also very valuable to OS developers, the RDTSC instruction now no longer returns the number of clocks but is a constant rate counter and old games work again, especially if the OS takes care to somewhat synchronize the TSC across all CPUs.

      It seems timekeeping is still very much in a state of flux, with several timers available to choose from: 8253 timer, ACPI timer, LAPIC timers (per cpu), HPET timers and finally TSCs on each core, each with their own drawbacks.

      > UpdatePhysics( elapsedTime );

      IMHO the biggest problem with that is that it leads to jitter in the animation because it is impossible to determine in advance how much time you will spend rendering the subsequent frame/when the frame will actually be displayed (unless V-sync is turned off, then it becomes slightly easier). I don't think replays or synchronization between multiple computers are compelling arguments for fixed rate physics simulations, because running your physics simulation in lockstep with the server is basically impossible (and unnecessary IMHO); for replays all that is required is a log of all important events with an associated timestamp. I remember some multiplayer games from the past who did fixed step simulations and they all sucked because they limited the speed to the slowest computer. It is much better to have the server (fast computer) run an accurate simulation and the slow client to run an inaccurate simulation which is corrected frequently by updates from the server.

      I'm also not entirely convinced by your examples. In my experience, exploding physics mainly happen if there is an unexpected delay between simulation steps. It looks to me like your simulation isn't properly damping the springs, or the time-step size is exceptionally jittery, but I could be wrong of course.

    38. Re:Dosbox or freedos by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      At this point, zsnes belongs in the "classic emulator memory lane", not alongside snes9x or bsnes.

      Go look at their forums and realize that people are still asking, 6 years later, why Super Mario RPG doesn't work...

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    39. Re:Dosbox or freedos by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      That depends on whether you are a gamer or a donkey.

      ... and what if your gamertag is ElBurro187? :)

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    40. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Ostracus · · Score: 1
      --
      Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    41. Re:Dosbox or freedos by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      True... I haven't really been keeping up to date with the emulation scene. Looks like, according to Wikipedia, the last ZSNES release was about five years ago. Oh well... it's a classic. I was never really a heavy ZSNES user myself though.

    42. Re:Dosbox or freedos by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Why would a donkey have sex w/ a mare? Just to get the horse riled?

    43. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The problem is I need to find a good DOS-based virtual machine that can run DosBox from FreeDOS on DosBox.

      Have you been drinking?

      I have Wendin dos for gods sakes...

    44. Re:Dosbox or freedos by damaki · · Score: 1

      DOSbox evolved much. And it's now used by all DOS based games on gog.com, with a nice windowed configuration tool.

      --
      Stupidity is the root of all evil.
    45. Re:Dosbox or freedos by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

      My assumption is that, back in the day when games were trying to squeeze every last ounce of CPU cycles from a machine, checking the clock added just too much overhead.

      It likely a compromise between making the game playable today (and maybe not later) versus not being able to ship today. Also, I'd imagine that people just couldn't comprehend the improvements. Trying to explain an AMD Thunderbird to somebody stuffing registers on a 8086 would be like nailing jelly to a tree.

    46. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ZSNES was good back when its speed advantage was needed on the slower PCs of the past. Now, it's horrible, mainly due to the highly inaccurate sound engine. SNES9x has better sound, but BSNES is the best if you want to play the games exactly as you remember them.

      Still, I prefer DOSBox, ScummVM and the various DOS game engine remakes for my retro gaming because there were much better games on PCs than on consoles.

    47. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very cool! Thanks for sharing!

    48. Re:Dosbox or freedos by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Why would a donkey have sex w/ a mare? Just to get the horse riled?

      Because a mare is a female horse or donkey.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    49. Re:Dosbox or freedos by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      there were much better games on PCs than on consoles.

      That depends on what kind of game you like. The PC wins when it comes to first person shooters, adventures, strategy, simulation... but loses by far when it comes to shooters, platformers, fighting, beat em ups, arcade-style racing, and so on.

    50. Re:Dosbox or freedos by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Just have to figure out how to introduce NOPs into every program

  6. They can take our lives... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Funny

    They can take our lives, but they will never take our FreeDOS! William (Bill) Wallace

  7. Nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This just makes me miss DR-DOS...

    1. Re:Nostalgia by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      This just makes me miss DR-DOS...

      Especially the integration of editing including history function not in the command line interface, but directly in the console was great. It meant you could get back old input in all programs reading from the console, not only when entering commands, automatically.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Nostalgia by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Check out jpsoft and see if Take Command has the feature(s) you want/remember... The author also takes enhancement requests

      http://jpsoft.com/

      / They have a free version

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    4. Re:Nostalgia by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, what eventually happened to it - is it still part of TSG or UnXIS?

    5. Re:Nostalgia by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      A quick look at the site didn't reveal that specific feature I was talking about (namely, command line editing/history for arbitrary programs reading from stdin). However I might have missed it. But given that according to the page, ANSI control sequence support is only for its own commands (i.e. the stdout from programs other than their own apparently isn't interpreted), I guess they'll not touch stdin for other programs either.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  8. Good for embedded systems by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not? For embedded systems, when you need more than a boot loader, don't want all the excess baggage of Linux, and don't want to pay for one of the embedded OSs like QNX, it's a good option.

    You also know that FreeDOS doesn't have a "phone home" feature, a HTTP server, a mail server, or something else on an open port running in the background without your knowing about it.

    1. Re:Good for embedded systems by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I can't really see there being a situation where a minimal install is required, but a minimal Linux or BSD install is "too big". Especially with the "embedded" flavours.

      Still, much kudos to FreeDOS. I always feel a little bad for it whenever I buy a computer with "no OS" on it, and it comes with FreeDOS. It's a real OS too!

    2. Re:Good for embedded systems by mlts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. For an embedded system, a MS-DOS variant with FAT32 is good enough [1] for a lot of tasks. Done right, it can be close to a realtime OS as one would need for most tasks, with very little overhead, especially with hardware saving every CPU cycle can be important.

      Security? The OS doesn't even have a TCP/IP stack unless explictly loaded. No finding ports open that shouldn't be.

      Malware? Within the realm of possibility (Stuxnet showed us that), but without physical access, highly unlikely, especially if there is no Internet connection. Done right, the embedded code could write via a serial port, and another machine (or a VM) could read that, making those files accessible to a TCP/IP network for audit purposes.

      [1]: It would be nice to have ExFAT available as sizes of disks and other items get larger, but the IFS code to handle the complexities of a modern filesystem can be larger than the rest of the DOS kernel combined.

    3. Re:Good for embedded systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to say, I've made pretty damn small minimal installs using buildroot.

    4. Re:Good for embedded systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The said baggage probably refers to OS overhead like task switching, which for some applications, is probably too much even with linux/bsd and probably even realtime linux.
      DOS is about as bare metal and real-time as you can get while still having filesystem access. There are probably people out there who need it to be that low level, unencumbered even by timer interrupts if desired. I'm not one of those people but I'll still speak in defense of freedos for that purpose.

    5. Re:Good for embedded systems by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      [1]: It would be nice to have ExFAT available as sizes of disks and other items get larger, but the IFS code to handle the complexities of a modern filesystem can be larger than the rest of the DOS kernel combined.

      Given the purpose of DOS is really to be a file management layer, the FS part of the DOS 'kernel' really ought to be the biggest part. After all, that's what the "disk" part of DOS is supposed to mean, contrasted with a regular OS. There's no thread handling, no memory management (beyond setting things up to access traditional DOS memory map), no exception management, no multitasking, etc. Everything other than file management has to be done by the applicatoin. Now DOS provides some basic library calls, and the BIOS provides a few more, but that's it. APIs to various hardware drives differe per device (though there are a few standard interfaces that some drivers provide).

    6. Re:Good for embedded systems by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Security? Pah. DOS doesn't have any security whatsoever. Viruses spread by infected floppies were fairly common.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:Good for embedded systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [1]: It would be nice to have ExFAT available as sizes of disks and other items get larger, but the IFS code to handle the complexities of a modern filesystem can be larger than the rest of the DOS kernel combined.

      The folks at Avira (virus checker) also have a utility, NTFS4DOS, that gives DOS access to NTFS drives. You can hunt it down at their site, or pull it off the UBCD.

    8. Re:Good for embedded systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think FreeDOS can handle NTFS. Fuck exFAT.

    9. Re:Good for embedded systems by cusco · · Score: 1

      There are a couple of POS systems that use FreeDOS and NetBEUI for the terminals. You only need to secure the server, since NetBEUI is unrouteable nothing can get to the terminals. I've noticed that the newest terminals have USB card readers, so there must be a USB driver now for it.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  9. Re:Bloody Americans... by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

    Calm your tits. If it was a spoken interview, such lapses are forgivable. If it was written, it could be a problem of editing. For example, maybe he intended to say: "we don't have the number of developers today that we had 10 years ago". Then he thinks: it would sound better if I said "we don't have as many developers today as we had 10 years ago". So he edits part of the phrase, but misses just one word, and you have a weird mix of versions.

    Some mistakes are a bit harder to forgive, though. Such as "alot", or using "y'all" as singular. Those are quite annoying indeed.

  10. TUI GUI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me or is the average textual user interface much more efficient and quick to use than the average graphical user interface?
    This is speaking from my experience in retail back-ends.

    1. Re:TUI GUI by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      If you're familiar with the system, a text interface will win in speed almost every time, although keyboard shortcuts and a well thought-out UI can make it neck and neck.

      If you're unfamiliar with the system, then a GUI is usually better as pictographs can be much more intuitive.

    2. Re:TUI GUI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is.

  11. What's next? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

    But when we start work on 2.0, I'd prefer to take another look at FreeDOS and think about what DOS needs to do to take a step forward.

    How about a GUI?

    1. Re:What's next? by MangoCats · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.metagraphics.com/metawindow/gui/mncppfaq.txt

      1. Overview
          1.1 What is Menuet/CPP.
              Menuet/CPP is the third generation in Graphical User Interface
              packages from Autumn Hill Software. Menuet/CPP is implemented
              in the C++ language which is clear and intuitive for GUI programming.
              Many of the features included with Menuet/CPP are discussed in later
              sections of this FAQ.
          1.2 Version.
              Autumn Hill is currently shipping version 2.0a of Menuet/CPP.
          1.3 Supported Operating Systems.
              Menuet/CPP supports MS-DOS 3.3, 5.0, and 6.0. Other versions of DOS such
              as PC-DOS, DR-DOS, Novell DOS, and CompaqDOS may also work, but are not
              explicitly supported by Autumn Hill Software.
          1.4 Supported Graphics Packages.
              Menuet/CPP supports several graphics packages for a wide variety of needs.
              MetaWINDOW by Metagraphics Corporation, BGI from Borland International,
              and the Microsoft Graphics Library are all supported. Section 1.5
              lists the compatability between compiler, extenders, and these graphics
              toolkits.
          1.5 Supported Compilers and extenders.
              See the file COMPILER.DOC for a description of supported compiler, extender,
              and graphics package combinations.
          1.6 Autumn Hill's development environments.
              Autumn Hill prefers two development environments for Menuet/CPP.
              The first includes the Borland C++ 3.1 compiler with all of the
              graphics packages. The Borland compiler is an excellent compiler,
              it is fast, creates compact code, and has the best debugger on the
              market. The Zortech C++ 3.1 compiler with Flash Tek's X32-VM extender
              is also used in development. The X32-VM is a
              great extender, it is royalty free, and works well with the Zortech
              compiler. Programming in protected mode is excellent for debugging
              purposes since many "bugs" in programs can be found as they will cause
              a program to crash when the "bugs" are encountered. For instance,
              in real mode a reference outside of an array will return bogus
              information. In protected mode a reference outside of an array will
              cause a protection viloation and the program will halt at that point
              of execution.
          1.7 CUA compliancy.
              IBM developed the Common User Access(CUA) paradigm to unify the many
              user interfaces in the world. OS/2 and MS-Windows are the major
              user interfaces that are CUA compiant. The full CUA documentation
              sets are available through IBM. Most of Menuet/CPP is CUA compliant.
              For instance, The ALT-F4 key combination will close a window. But
              There is no idea of a currently active control that can be changed
              by pressing the TAB key to move to the next control.
          1.8 Memory requirements.
              See the file MNSAMP1.DOC for a list of executable sizes for the "Hello,
              World" example program.

    2. Re:What's next? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      But when we start work on 2.0, I'd prefer to take another look at FreeDOS and think about what DOS needs to do to take a step forward.

      How about a GUI?

      I'd let the GUI be in a different project. But a good next step for FreeDOS would be making it 32-bit and porting it to other CPUs, if possible. Also, include in it some of the extra commands it gotten from NT, such as START, and also, if possible, get PowerShell to it. That, and a 64-bit port too should bring it up to par with the CUI part of Windows 7

    3. Re:What's next? by cusco · · Score: 1

      The DOSShell that came with DOS 5 was nice, but it competed directly with Windows 3.1 so was removed in DOS 6. I managed to pull DOSShell from the DOS 5 floppies and get it to run under DOS 6.0, but when the memory fix in 6.1 was applied it stopped working again. My office converted to Windows for Workgroups at that point so I never got back to it.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  12. FreeXP and XPBox by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    DOS is one of those things that is there like herpes if you dig deep enough under the skin of any enterprise and even a few home users you will find it there.

    XP refuses to die on the otherhand and which came out when PCs were much more popular than during the DOS era. I wonder in 2023 we will be having XPBOX or FreeXP since it has so many die hard users who refuse to leave kicking and screaming the whole time.

    1. Re:FreeXP and XPBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never eard of Reactos do you? http://www.reactos.org

    2. Re:FreeXP and XPBox by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wonder in 2023 we will be having XPBOX or FreeXP since it has so many die hard users who refuse to leave kicking and screaming the whole time.

      I think that one is called ReactOS.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:FreeXP and XPBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ReactOS --->http://www.reactos.org/

    4. Re:FreeXP and XPBox by unixisc · · Score: 1

      ReactOS hasn't been moving much, so I'd suggest a different approach. Have maybe 3 projects, each the subset of the other. Have a win64 based project aimed at being identical to Windows 7, and supporting everything from 4GB and above. Have a 32-bit, but XP compatible, derivative of that, which ranges from 32MB to 2GB, and which will run anything that ran between Windows 95 to XP. Between them, all Microsoft OSs (except Windows 3.1) should be covered.

  13. Re:Bloody Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet is spelled with a capital I. Idiot.

  14. done right it *is* a realtime OS by Chirs · · Score: 2

    since if you avoid TSRs you have full control over the hardware.

    I once implemented a digital PID controller (with a few extra bits) using Turbo C on a 486 with an A/D card. The drivers for the card sucked, so I had to rewrite them but the result was a read/calculate/write cycle that was 4x faster than the stock driver.

    1. Re:done right it *is* a realtime OS by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      You don't even have to avoid TSRs. Just avoid TSRs which take over hardware interrupts. A TSR which does nothing but sit there until you explicitly call it doesn't interfere with realtime.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:done right it *is* a realtime OS by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      since if you avoid TSRs you have full control over the hardware.

      I once implemented a digital PID controller (with a few extra bits) using Turbo C on a 486 with an A/D card. The drivers for the card sucked, so I had to rewrite them but the result was a read/calculate/write cycle that was 4x faster than the stock driver.

      Just because it is possible to use DOS as a real-time OS doesn't mean that DOS *is* a real-time OS. It is similar to how people *can* program C in an object-oriented manner, but that doesn't make C an object-oriented language.

    3. Re:done right it *is* a realtime OS by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      People forget just how much work was done on old DOS systems. An old PC with a printer port or two actually gives you a lot of IO and an easy development system two work with for very little cost.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:done right it *is* a realtime OS by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      uhh..

      how not so? you run dos and it's cycle for cycle the same output time after time. it's friggin hard to introduce something that wouldn't make it realtime(incidentally you could fool many copy protection schemes to always ask the same question on the same machine)

      you'd have to provide an example of how it's not cycle for cycle predictable to deny that it's a "realtime os". it's as consistent as it can get!

      though your best bet would be to argue that it's not an OS at all.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:done right it *is* a realtime OS by willy_me · · Score: 1

      A real-time operating system provides resources to a process within a set time frame. Should some event occur, the OS will process the event while ensuring real-time processes still get their promised resources on time.

      DOS does not qualify as a real-time OS because there is no multitasking and DOS can not guarantee that resources will be available. For example, if a process has to modify the FAT table on a large disk containing multiple entries, the system will lock up until it is done.

      you'd have to provide an example of how it's not cycle for cycle predictable to deny that it's a "realtime os". it's as consistent as it can get!

      It is only consistent if you are not making any DOS calls and can guarantee there will be no interrupts processed by DOS. So basically, DOS is a real-time OS only if you are not using it.

    6. Re:done right it *is* a realtime OS by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      It's close enough for probably almost anything but I still want a RTOS on any airplane I get onto.

  15. A FreeDOSH shell is what I want. by mozkill · · Score: 2

    What I want is a FreeDOS shell for Linux: FreeDOSH . If that existed, it would be exciting to write DOS batch scripts on linux. LOL

    --

    -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
    1. Re:A FreeDOSH shell is what I want. by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      FreeDOSH would fit right in the Linux culture of giving things names with multiple meanings. (In this case, dosh is slang for money).

      I have converted a few batch files to BASH. BASH is surprisingly inefficient for simple batch file tasks, but quickly makes up for it once you add any complexity at all.

    2. Re:A FreeDOSH shell is what I want. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      So you're saying what BASH lacks in efficiency it more than makes up for in complexity?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:A FreeDOSH shell is what I want. by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I'm saying it's inefficient compared to batch files when it comes to the very simplest scripts, but once you need to do anything complex, BASH is much easier and more powerful to use.

    4. Re:A FreeDOSH shell is what I want. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Try Dosemu, it does wonders.

    5. Re:A FreeDOSH shell is what I want. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very exiting stuff indeed. Full of nice surprises, like when someone told me once, just when some overly complex command scripts had to be changed, it was now possible to use parentheses to create blocks:

      if condition1 (
              if condition2 (
                      something
              )
      ) else (
              works
      )

      What he failed to mention was that the parentheses only served to combine lines, so the above code meant:

      if condition1 if condition2 something else works

      And that made the else belong to the second if instead of the first. That was a nice surprise. It's a very original language design, it wouldn't have occurred to me to make it work like this.

    6. Re:A FreeDOSH shell is what I want. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      What I want is a FreeDOS shell for Linux: FreeDOSH

      No, that's Sean Connery's OS. You want commandcomsh.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:A FreeDOSH shell is what I want. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "inefficient".

    8. Re:A FreeDOSH shell is what I want. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      So, again, you're saying what BASH lacks in efficiency it more than makes up for in complexity?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  16. Re:Bloody Americans... by Frojack123 · · Score: 1

    Maybe its like Australians saying
          A is different TO B
    when they mean
          A is different FROM B

    The language dictates
    Similar TO
    Different FROM

    Still, we simply smile, and not jump down the throats of our Australian friends, or call them names.

    --
    F. Robert Jack
  17. Re:Bloody Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's "as many... AS"... not "that". Bloody Americans - why can't you understand what simple words mean? Why are you constantly substituting 'then' for 'than', or 'that' for 'than', or even 'than' for 'then'? Are you so stupid that you can't even understand simple words like that? It's all over the internet. Idiots.

    Last I saw I wasn't leaking any sort of life sustaining fluid. But I guess your colloquialism of "Bloody Americans" is OK since it happens to align with your culture. Word usage changes over time. Not that he is correct, but word usage and even definition changes over time. Get used to it.

  18. Dos still essential in bios flashings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dos is still required for bios flashings. I really like using Rufus ( http://rufus.akeo.ie/ ) and get a flash drive ready with FreeDos. A two clicks process and it's all FOSS.

  19. FreeDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "640kb ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates

    It now appears to be true.

  20. Re:Argh! Fluff piece! by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 0

    The backslash is used as the directory heirarchy separator.
    The drive letter is part of the path specification.
    The current directory is implicitly first on the execution search path.

    Stuff like that.

  21. Re:Bloody Americans... by JustOK · · Score: 1

    Linternet?

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  22. booting stubborn thin clients by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Interesting

    many thin clients (e.g. some of HPs) refuse to boot from anything other than a ms-dos partition. to turn them into BSD or Linux appliances I have a FreeDOS partition on usb drive with grub in it, which chain boots the next partition. if you choose to boot into the FreeDOS there is editor for grub config and whatever other handy things you might need (like alternate flash images or whatever). need a very low power consumption domain/mail/web/vpn/unix shell server at home? those thin clients can pull 18W or less

    1. Re:booting stubborn thin clients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      18W is no longer "very low power" in the era of the Raspberry Pi.

    2. Re:booting stubborn thin clients by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      sure it is, we're talking 1GHz Pentium III or higher equivalent power with 1GB ram and power of mini-disk included. what's the RP going to give you, 200MHz Pentium II level performance and 512MB memory at best and no disk. which sure is fine for some applications, but I run a domain with web server, database, email, vpn, ipv6 router for my 18W. A raspberry would do that in very slow motion....

  23. Modernization by jones_supa · · Score: 5, Funny

    DOS could really use a modern composited OpenGL accelerated desktop. Maybe call it "GL Accelerated Disk Operating System". What do you think?

    1. Re:Modernization by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      That would definitely be quite a triumph.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  24. change the battery by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    change the battery

    1. Re:change the battery by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      This happened from day 0, it's a known issue with this model - no fix.

    2. Re:change the battery by Vreejack · · Score: 1

      EEPROM is not maintained by the battery. "Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory" is supposed to be non-volatile. It is written to in-circuit by driving it with a special higher voltage that is not otherwise used. I cannot think of any reason why removing power would affect it (other that extreme incompetence by the engineers). Or the message is wrong and it is not EEPROM but ordinary CMOS. In which case you might be missing a battery. Maybe they forgot to design it in :-)

      CMOS* and a battery are often used to record system settings for the BIOS. You do NOT need to flash the PROM if it gets corrupted, just reset it to default and reenter the data by hand.

      *Do they still use CMOS? It runs on very low power as it only draws current when it switches. Ideal for storing system specs that need to be changed once in a while and need to be available before any devices can be accessed.

      --
      "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
  25. Re:Bloody Americans... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary lists both alternatives.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  26. Re:Bloody Americans... by dgatwood · · Score: 2

    Only in French. And you forgot the apostrophe.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  27. Not At All Amazing - DOS Is Just The Way It's Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you want to access PC hardware directly without any abstraction layers and OS latencies that screw up timing, a copy of MS-DOS 5.0 or FreeDOS is still the way to go. In fact, I just set up a machine last week with a copy of MS-DOS 5.0 and TurboCNC, which is sending stepper motor step commands at precise intervals to the motors on a CNC machine using the PC's parallel port. USB is as useless as Windows and the more recent Linux distributions for things like this.

  28. Use it myself, in linux by DCFusor · · Score: 2

    To run some older Protel CAD tools. The very old (and used to be free) pcb editor now costs in the tens of thousands of dollars, and for my use case, isn't even as good. The old one runs fine on freedos, is fast as crap on new hardware, and gets my job done. And, the graphics are great.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  29. MSDOS history by mvar · · Score: 2

    Irrelevant to FreeDOS, a few days ago I was searching about MSDOS and in which language it was written. For whoever might be interested, there's a nice read here: What language was MS-DOS Written in?. Summary: MS bought the QDOS rights, QDOS was based on the CP/M OS which was written in FORTRAN

    1. Re:MSDOS history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " the assembly language used by Seattle Computer Products wasn't FORTRAN but was built
      in-house since it was the only thing available to them at that time."

    2. Re:MSDOS history by gaudior · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fortran?! No. CP/M is written in 8080 Assembly code. Later versions took advantage of Z80 op-codes.

    3. Re:MSDOS history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The last design requirement was that MS-DOS be written in assembly
      language. While this characteristic does help meet the need for speed
      and efficiency, the reason for including it is much more basic. The
      only 8086 software-development tools available to Seattle Computer at
      that time were an assembler that ran on the Z80 under CP/M and a
      monitor/debugger that fit into a 2K-byte EPROM (erasable programmable
      read-only memory). Both of these tools had been developed in house."

    4. Re:MSDOS history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to this article, CP/M was written in the popular assembly language, FORTRAN.

      Wow, I thought the author of that post had a finely tuned sense of irony until I saw his correction... turns out he apparently had never heard of FORTRAN! WTF?

    5. Re:MSDOS history by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      It was not possible to write an OS in Fortran. You lacked pointers, memory management and pretty much everything useful except the ability to do math and some basic I/O. Although the modern Fortran versions have a lot more features, I think it is still impossible to write an OS in Fortran, but I am no OS expert.

    6. Re:MSDOS history by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      It was not possible to write an OS in Fortran. You lacked pointers, memory management and pretty much everything useful except the ability to do math and some basic I/O.

      You do realize that you just described MS-DOS, right?

    7. Re:MSDOS history by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      While the talk about FORTRAN seems to be a bit confusing, may I remind that the (incomplete?) assembly source code for MS-DOS 6.22 was leaked, I think about a decade ago. I couldn't find it with quick googling but it's probably floating there somewhere. Just if you are interested. If someone has a link, I could be interested to take a peek at it again, too.

    8. Re:MSDOS history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure about that? Aaages ago I had a copy of what claimed to be MSDOS source code, and that was in assembler. Now admittedly it might have just been a case of reverse engineering from code, but I wonder.

      Actually I probably still have it somewhere.

    9. Re:MSDOS history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. CP/M as I remember it was writtei n in 8080 Assembly,

      MS-DOS was written in MASM. Macro Assembler, a bare bones one, that got polished into the IBM MASM.
      Look to the source code that was available both the IBM BIOS and the driver for RAMDISK.SYS to prove it.

      How easily is it to revise history?

    10. Re:MSDOS history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is ONE OS written in FORTRAN, because its proprietary extensions,
      allowed only one thing: Poking and Peeking.
      But the entire OS, except for the boot loader was written in it,
      and all it had to support was the FORTRAN Compiler and FORTRAN applications.

      It was big, famous, and really cool.
      What was it?

    11. Re:MSDOS history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is the history:
      "It consisted of 4000 lines of assembly language source code and ran in 8 KB of memory.[11]"

      [11]Duncan, Ray (1988). The MS-DOS Encyclopedia, Microsoft Press. ISBN 1-55615-049-0.

    12. Re:MSDOS history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The source code was for MS DOS 6.00 was also written in MASM, just the same as the Driver.sys example file for writing a device driver.
      I cannot locate it either, but I did find Windows Neptune and Windows Wistler :)

    13. Re:MSDOS history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All these things were available, but only through what is best described as abuse of the language.

    14. Re:MSDOS history by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The MSDOS5 source (or rather, some late version not quite DOS6 yet) used to float around, and may yet for all I know. What I looked at was all assembly.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    15. Re:MSDOS history by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Which company made/makes the Z80?

    16. Re:MSDOS history by unixisc · · Score: 1

      So it was an 8-bit OS, not 16-bit, right?

    17. Re:MSDOS history by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      Heh, no, I had not realized that.

      However, the fact that DOS didn't have all these things doesn't mean that the programming/assembly language didn't need/have them in order to write DOS. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that even the idea of a pointer was unknown back then, since all low level management was done in assembly. If you have to deal with the memory directly anyway, then a pointer doesn't make much sense, I guess.

  30. Re:never heard of Free Dos or MS-dos by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    when is saw the letters DOS i thought of Denial of Service.

    That's because so many people get that wrong. Denial of Service is correctly abbreviated as DoS (note the lowercase o).

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  31. Re:Bloody Americans... by CrashandDie · · Score: 1

    You gimme a ping when you hear a Frenchman saying "je suis sur l'internet."

  32. Not totally obsolete.... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...I hear you can play Dwarf Fortress in native mode on it?

    --
    -Styopa
  33. NC - Technically a TUI, but it's all you need by sys_mast · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Commander

    I guess it's called a TextUI, but it's all I ever needed for DOS. Really never saw the point of a GUI until I started multitasking. But since I'm guessing FreeDOS is not a multitasking OS, I don't see the point in anything more than NC.

    PS when working with a Linux box from a windows workstation, WinSCP in NC mode ROCKS.

    --
    Those who can, do.
    1. Re:NC - Technically a TUI, but it's all you need by Wolfrider · · Score: 2

      --Xtree Pro Gold was Teh Unbeatable file manager for DOS back in the day. For modern equipment, Midnight Commander does the job reasonably well (safest way to delete files, for one thing.) MC is also available for Cygwin.

      For the true diehards, see here:

      http://www.ztree.com/

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    2. Re:NC - Technically a TUI, but it's all you need by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      A great TUI based file manager for Windows is Open source Far Manager: http://www.farmanager.com/

      It also has lots of plugins, and even things like drag / drop, allowing you to eject usb devices, sftp client, archive support, etc.

    3. Re:NC - Technically a TUI, but it's all you need by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I did multitasking in DOS without a GUI, using Quartedeck's DesqView/386. That way I could run a BBS and still use my PC for most other things. It actually worked pretty well.

  34. Uhmm, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    flashrom has dos, unix, linux, and possibly windows/osx support now.

    With the exception of laptops, some servers, and super-new motherboards, it'll read, verify, and usually write new images without error.

    Additionally it's a great way to back up your original bios if the bios updater app you're planning to use doesn't have an option to do it for you.

  35. Re:Not At All Amazing - DOS Is Just The Way It's D by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    If you want to access PC hardware directly without any abstraction layers and OS latencies that screw up timing, a copy of MS-DOS 5.0 or FreeDOS is still the way to go. In fact, I just set up a machine last week with a copy of MS-DOS 5.0 and TurboCNC, which is sending stepper motor step commands at precise intervals to the motors on a CNC machine using the PC's parallel port. USB is as useless as Windows and the more recent Linux distributions for things like this.

    back when I was a kid.. some games did more than that.

    they were self bootables.. no dos. pretty neat actually. original pc pirates! was such for example.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  36. Re:Bloody Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Internet is spelled with a capital I. Idiot.

    The Internet is an internet*.

    * Any set of connected networks using the Internet Protocol.

  37. U mean I still have a chance for mobile bbs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah RENEGADE BBS going down the road bitches.. Legend of the Red Dragon while you zip down the freeway.
    I can fucking still dream..

    1. Re:U mean I still have a chance for mobile bbs? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      LORD2 was fun.

  38. Yo dawg by Holistic+Missile · · Score: 2

    You said you like to run DOS, so...

    Aw, screw it. You knew it was coming. :-)

    --
    When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
  39. Re:Not At All Amazing - DOS Is Just The Way It's D by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Did they have no DOS, or just no shell?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  40. Funny story by drolli · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of applications for which DOS is "just right". Its running in a lot of embedded PCs. And there is zero reason to shcange it in many of these.

  41. Re:Bloody Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australians don't respond well to dictators

  42. Re:Bloody Americans... by JustOK · · Score: 1

    It ran away.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  43. Re:Bloody Americans... by JD-1027 · · Score: 1

    On y'all as singular... I noticed when visiting some parts of the south that they say "y'all" to a single person and say "all y'all" to a group of people. I kid you not.

  44. I helped out a tiny bit! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    At the time I needed a bootable USB image (so I could use it to flash a BIOS), there wasn't one. I ended up writing up how I made one and Jim posted the end result at http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/unofficial/virtualbox/ for others to download. If you want to try FreeDOS without going through the installation process yourself - or if you don't have the facilities to do so because the $#@()! server is down and your boss is freaking out and screaming and you're out of time - then enjoy!

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  45. An MS-DOS compatible OS? by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    > FreeDOS .. is still being actively developed, despite achieving its initial aim of an MS-DOS compatible OS ..

    That isn't so amazing considering MS-DOS was a renamed 86-DOS, from 'Seattle Computer Products', and 'Digital Research' sold DR-DOS up until Microsoft started to build-in incompatibilities into Windows to make it not run on alien Operating Systems ...

    --
    AccountKiller
  46. Re:Bloody Americans... by gwgwgw · · Score: 1

    I'm from Texas. I spent quite a bit of time explaining to a native Japanese engineer the nuances of y'all. I remember specifically talking to him about when to use y'all when there was only you and the person you were talking to around.

    --
    That was Zen, this is Tao
  47. Segments by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    Segments were a horrible chapter in uP history. From flat memory we went to the horrors of segments, then eventually, back again, thank goodness.

    If those people at Motorola had the silicon skills of those at Intel, IBM might have gone with the 68000 and up, and we'd be years ahead of where we are now. Instead, we got slammed with the 8088 and up, and good grief, what a freaking nightmare.

    Segments. Ugh. Someone oughta be shot over that. Also whoever invented pantyhose, while I'm making a list. :)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Segments by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      *cough* iAXP 432, B5000 *cough* Segments are better than paging, if implemented right, paging is easier to implement, though more expensive, you also need a good compiler, check out google native client.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  48. Re:Bloody Americans... by Cimexus · · Score: 1

    Hmm never noticed that before.

    I'm Australian and:

    different TO
    different FROM
    different THAN

    all sound OK to me. Though in my head, they have subtly different usage contexts. I think I use 'different than' most of the time actually.

  49. Re:Bloody Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you taught him fuckin' WRONG.

  50. EPROMs, Flash, batteries, CMOS by unixisc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not to be pedantic, but you are describing EPROMs above, not EEPROMS. EPROMs are the devices that you program using higher voltages, and erase using UV rays (they had a transparent window to the die to enable that). Nobody makes those anymore. There is a variation of that called MTP, where instead of the UV rays, one can apply the higher voltage to the VPP and a particular address line to erase it, and program it normally putting the higher voltage just on the VPP pin. These products, to the extent that they are made, are the replacements of EPROM. Then there are mask ROMs for the high end equivalents of these things: while EPROMs and MTPs were in the 1 mebibit range, mask ROMs are in the 1 gibibit range.

    EEPROMs, otoh, are NOR flash memory devices. Flash memory works this way - while read operations are the same as static or dynamic RAM, depending on design, program operations are done in software - by sending a certain address/data combination sequence before a program cycle(s) can start. That is what is known as in-system programming, and that is what PCs use. So any software that tries to 'flash a BIOS' essentially has to first determine who the manufacturer of the flash memory is (since different manufacturers tend to use different algorithms - most JEDEC endorsed) and then accordingly, send the appropriate command cycles to the flash before loading it w/ the addresses and data to be programmed into it.

    Batteries are needed to maintain the system clock. Every time you power down a laptop, how does the thing remember the time when it boots up again? The battery is how - there is no way a flash device, which simply stores the last state that was programmed into it, would be counting down the time. When the battery goes down, that's when one sometimes sees motherboard failures and the like.

    CMOS has forever been the standard that's used to build transistors, due to their scalability - TTL was never used, and ECL was tried on occasion by 1 company called Exponential Logic to build high performance PowerPCs for Apple in the 90s, but they went bust. CMOS will stop being used when silicon stops being used.

  51. Re:Bloody Americans... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    "Admittedly, we don't have as many developers today THAT we had 10 years ago,"

    It's "as many... AS"... not "that". Bloody Americans - why can't you understand what simple words mean? Why are you constantly substituting 'then' for 'than', or 'that' for 'than', or even 'than' for 'then'? Are you so stupid that you can't even understand simple words like that? It's all over the internet. Idiots.

    Don't you have royalty to bow to somewhere?

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  52. DOS vs Linux by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Well, DOS is a lot easier to use than Linux, in that there are far fewer commands. Plus having DOS means being able to run a number of reasonably useful applications that existed before Windows took over, without having to worry about where things are in terms of configuration information. Typically, a setup program will install whatever is needed, and one is off to the races.

  53. FreeDOS and NT enhancements by unixisc · · Score: 1

    To recreate something is to understand it, and msdos is worth understanding. Tons of legacy applications still depend on dos and are still in use! This is a step towards long term support of those applications.

    Precisely this! There is plenty of stuff that doesn't need Windows, and could just run off a DOS, which makes this project worth it. Now, if only ReactOS could be just as functional, nobody would bother what Microsoft is up to.

    That said, a few questions I have. Does FreeDOS support some commands that came about in NT, such as as Start, to start background processes while returning to the DOS prompt?

    I'd love it if there were 32- or 64-bit versions of FreeDOS, complete w/ NT enhancements. Heck, I'd even like them having PowerShell commands, as well as them being ported to other former NT platforms, such as MIPS and Alpha.

  54. No floppy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't have a floppy and still need to boot into FreeDOS to run a utility or whatever, it is possible to boot it from Grub. Here is how to boot FreeDOS from Grub on Ubuntu.

  55. RTOS by unixisc · · Score: 1

    But DOS is not a real-time OS. A real time OS is one that requires any program or operation to be completed within a predetermined time, and if it isn't, that program is aborted and system resources are freed up, thereby preventing a hang. DOS otoh is a single tasking OS (unless FreeDOS has taken NT's CLI's start command, which allows a task to be started after returning to the command prompt. Machine control systems need to be controlled, not by Linux or Windows, but not by DOS either: they need specific OSs created for them, such as QNX or WindRiver. Even Minix 3, w/ its reincarnation server, is a good choice.

  56. Opened Windows by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Actually, what they should do here is ReactOS - make it completely target Windows 7 and do it, and then have XP Mode created inside it. I've never had trouble running Windows 95 games on XP - it was in Vista that it started breaking. But most recently, I installed Civ2 (a CD I have from years ago) in XP mode, and it works like a charm.

    Or, better yet, have a 64-bit version targeting anything from 4GB and more, as well as a 32-bit version targeting anything between 32MB and 2GB (the Windows 95 to XP range. That should have them covered. I don't know if there's a point in having a 16 bit version that will mirror what Windows 3.1 used to be.

    Newer software standards, such as IPv6, can be grafted on to these OSs.

    1. Re:Opened Windows by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Then you got lucky friend, as I had not one, not two, but three great games bite me in the ass on XP. FFVII will spend more time crashing to desktop than running, MechWarriors 3 will suffer from the "bouncing APC" bug where your support craft (required for several missions) will "bounce" hundreds of feet into the air and be unusable in game, And finally i76 has several spots where in game events simply won't happen as they "tuned" that game to Win9X to squeeze every drop of performance and on XP it just doesn't work, there are several timed events that just don't happen.

      But it would be nice to have a totally free version of Windows 7, but seeing as how ReactOS isn't even in beta yet I'm not gonna hold my breath. they really need a big corp like Google behind them so they can hire enough devs to get things done on a reasonable timeline, as it is now they are going awfully slowly. After all the original goal was to give us a free version of Win95 and when each new Windows comes out they just move the bar that much further out.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Opened Windows by unixisc · · Score: 1

      On the first item, it would be good if they expanded VirtualPC to support not just XP Mode, but everything from Windows 95 right up to XP. Maybe even a Windows 3.1 emulation for win16 games, or have a different program for win16 and DOS apps.

      ReactOS did have moving goalposts, but not any more: we've seen how lot of people consider XP good enough, and definitely, just about everyone considers Windows 7 good enough. So they just have to make a completely open version of Windows 7, and not worry about future versions of Windows. Like I suggested above, they could do win64 and win32 OSs based on Windows 7 and XP respectively, and for the XP equivalent, backport more recent features like IPv6 support into it so that it will have all the support for XP apps, while not falling back in terms of standards.

    3. Re:Opened Windows by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I don't see MSFT adding support in VPC, after all the want to shove people onto their latest and greates and sell 'em apps from the appstore, using old software doesn't support that goal. What we need is a free VM like Virtualbox that will do GPU acceleration in Win9X and XP guests, some sort of pass through or translation to OpenGL, as win9X was when the first games that truly required decent GPUs appeared.

      As far as ReactOS win 7 for both 32bit and 64bit would probably be the better target, you could integrate VirtualBox for XP mode and not only are they only having to build and debug one OS but if they went XP they'd need to backport a lot of stuff, support for modern SSDs for example. I agree that Win 7 is a "good enough" Windows that Win 7 64bit would cover pretty much any foreseeable hardware so that should probably be the main goal.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  57. Please stop by WD · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    1) I don't know why people keep perpetuating this silly made-up quote.
    2) I don't know why Slashdot mods don't understand the difference between "funny" and "joke." Or perhaps they just have bad senses of humor.

  58. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the WEBSITE...

    "Windows standard-mode works on FreeDOS, but 386-mode Windows for Workgroups 3.11 does not."

    REAL DOS can even run windows 95...

    I think I will stick with that...

  59. Still needs some basic stuff by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    For instance, getting ATAPI CDROM support would enable a dozen things I'd like to do with FreeDOS. I've tried a dozen forum posts that claim to do it, tried a bunch of proprietary abandonware drivers, and nothing reliably works across any common set of hardware.

    ATAPI.SYS has been "in development" for how long? I know, the core of DOS rather predates CDROM's (and I was there in the 90's doing it anyway), but keeping FreeDOS relevant on hardware that's available today is something I wish had higher priority. Yeah, yeah, grab that old Panasonic IDE out of the bin...

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  60. FreeDOS + Cygwin.. anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be great if cygwin could be integrated into FreeDOS, then we'll have the best of both worlds.