Slashdot Mirror


How (And Why) FreeDOS Keeps DOS Alive (computerworld.com.au)

FreeDOS was originally created in response to Microsoft's announcement that after Windows 95, DOS would no longer be developed as a standalone operating system, according to a new interview about how (and why) Jim Hall keeps FreeDOS alive. For its newest version, Hall originally imagined "what 'DOS' would be like in 2015 or 2016 if Microsoft hadn't stopped working on MS-DOS in favor of Windows" -- before he decided there's just no such thing as "modern DOS". An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: No major changes are planned in the next version. "The next version of FreeDOS won't be multitasking, it won't be 32-bit, it won't run on ARM," Hall said. "FreeDOS is still intended for Intel and Intel-compatible computers. You should still be able to run FreeDOS on your old 486 or old Pentium PC to play classic DOS games, run legacy business programs, and support embedded development."
By day, Hall is the CIO for a county in Minnesota, and he's also a member of the board of directors for GNOME (and contributes to other open source projects) -- but he still remembers using DOS's built-in BASIC system to write simple computer programs. "Many of us older computer nerds probably used DOS very early, on our first home computer..." he tells ComputerWorld. Even without John Romero's new Doom level, "The popularity of DOS games and DOS shareware applications probably contributes in a big way to FreeDOS's continued success." I'd be curious how many Slashdot readers have some fond memories about downloading DOS shareware applications.

13 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. There was a modern MS DOS ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... before he decided there's just no such thing as "modern DOS" ...

    Well, there was a "modern MS DOS", it was MS OS/2 1.x.

    1. Re:There was a modern MS DOS ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, there was a "modern MS DOS", it was MS OS/2 1.x.

      Except that OS/2 was a multitasking, protected mode operating system ...

      That was part of what made it "modern".

      ... from IBM ...

      And from Microsoft

      ... and MS-DOS wasn't any of those things.

      OS/2 1.x was described by Microsoft as a modern OS designed to replace DOS.

      OS/2 1.1, released just 11 months later, came with the promised Presentation Manager GUI, further extending its abilities beyond MS-DOS.

      Extending its abilities, also known as "modernizing". According to Microsoft OS/2 1.x with Presentation Manager was the "upgrade path" from DOS. For users stuck with legacy software they were going to add a comparable GUI to DOS called Windows. The Windows and Presentation Manager APIs were nearly identical, a convenience for developers as described by Microsoft. Windows was just temporary. Then the market ignored OS/2 1.x and stayed with DOS, Microsoft then reconsidered Windows and their partnership with IBM. I think we know how the story goes from there. The fact remains, for a little while, OS/2 1.x was the modern OS to replace DOS according to Microsoft.

    2. Re:There was a modern MS DOS ... by Jim+Hall · · Score: 5, Informative

      (Jim Hall here, from the article.)

      This is exactly why we decided a "modern" DOS wasn't really DOS anymore. As you say, OS/2 was intended to be the "modern" DOS of the day, a multitasking, protected mode operating system. But to get all that, you have to break binary compatibility. So OS/2 wasn't really DOS anymore. But it wasn't meant to be, hence the new name.

      Ultimately, we decided that if you can't run classic DOS programs on a "modern" DOS, then it's not DOS anymore. So we decided to keep FreeDOS as just plain DOS. That's why FreeDOS 1.2 and later will still be essentially the same as FreeDOS 1.1 and earlier, with a few updates here and there. No fundamental changes. We won't be multitasking or multiuser or any other "modern" operating system functionality. That's not what it means to be DOS.

  2. Re:DOS was terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Single user and no security what-so-ever. IBM should have used the 68000 combined with a proper OS.

    Single user single tasking was just fine for the day's hardware and the user needs. *nix would just slow the hardware down for no good reason, PCs weren't for remote time sharing use. Plus *nix, and its software "ecosystem" wasn't really a good match for a 16-bit architecture.

    Yes, the 68K was a much nicer processor. The segmented memory models of the x86 were a major source of bugs. 32-bit registers would have been nice.

    MS and IBM had a proper OS for the hardware of that era, it was 16-bit OS/2. The market said no thank you.

  3. Re:DOS's built-in BASIC system? by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, GW-BASIC.

  4. You're not that old by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Many of us older computer nerds probably used DOS very early, on our first home computer..."

    And here I think of DOS as a 'newer' system

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Re:DOS shareware games by mrbester · · Score: 3, Informative

    There were TSR utilities that basically wasted CPU cycles so you could play games like that. Centipede was another unplayable game unless you slowed it down.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  6. Use it via DOSEMU by RuffMasterD · · Score: 5, Informative

    I still use FreeDOS regularly to run 20 year old research software. I use DOSEMU, which lets me edit files and move data around in Linux, and then read them into the DOS program without stopping and starting a virtual machine. So I have a DOSEMU terminal open, and my favorite text editor next to it, and maybe tail the log file in another terminal, all at the same time.

    That old DOS software is still superior to any new point-and-click software. The config files leave a precise record of what parameters I set, and the logs leave a precise record of the result. It's fully auditable and reproducible, which is what science should be. And it will still run just as well as the day it was bought in another 20 years from now. The director tried to get us to buy some 'modern' software to do the same task. It 'only' cost $5000 and ran in MS Access. He was surprised when I refused the offer. Does it leave a written record of what I did? No. Are the results reproducible? No. Will it still run in 20 years time? Fuck no. Some things aren't broken yet, leave them alone.

    --
    Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
  7. Re:DOS was terrible by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

    It has both no security and perfect security. Security isn't in the OS, but there are also few vulnerabilities. The applications own the security. So there's no reason DOS couldn't be used, it would just need appropriately secure applications to meet your requirements.

  8. Re:The problem with FreeDOS... by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or, you know, use FreeDOS to run it on modern hardware - which is kind-of the point of the article.

  9. Re:The problem with FreeDOS... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or just run it in DOSBox on any OS. For most software that's the obvious thing to do.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  10. Re:Downloading DOS shareware by Jim+Hall · · Score: 3, Informative

    For shareware we relied on floppy disks and CDs. Most of them came attached to some magazine.

    I wonder how many new devs know what "shareware" was? For those wondering: shareware was a concept where devs created something and gave away a limited version of it for free. And you could share that limited version with anyone. Shareware games usually were the first "chapter" or first few levels. Shareware DOS applications usually just nagged you to buy them after 30 days - but I don't remember many that actually stopped working if they weren't registered.

    I mentioned some shareware in the interview, but I played a lot of Wolfenstein 3D, DOOM, Commander Keen, Rise of the Triad, Epic Pinball, Jill of the Jungle, and Duke Nukem back then. These are all DOS shareware games.

    I used a lot of DOS shareware applications for other things. AsEasyAs and GalaxyWrite got me through a lot of my university physics program. I analyzed lab data in AsEasyAs (because the old saying is "as easy as 1-2-3" ... and Lotus 1-2-3 was a popular commercial spreadsheet ... get it?) and wrote class papers in GalaxyWrite (not as powerful as WordPerfect, but great for papers). I also remember a bunch of other DOS shareware applications but can't remember their names anymore: a modem-terminal program, an equation solver, etc.

  11. Re:The problem with FreeDOS... by Jim+Hall · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or just run it in DOSBox on any OS. For most software that's the obvious thing to do.

    Actually, it's better to run legacy business applications on an actual DOS system like FreeDOS. DOSBox is meant only for games. They don't have great compatibility with business software.

    FreeDOS runs very well in PC emulators and virtual machines like QEMU, VirtualPC, VMWare, VirtualBox, and others. At home, I run QEMU and DOSemu to boot FreeDOS. (When I'm developing, I use DOSemu so I can share files easily between Linux and FreeDOS. When I want to test FreeDOS in a more traditional virtual machine, I run QEMU.) It runs great!