Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the board
Thread view  Mix view  Order
iw2evk(R)

Magenta (Italy),
05.11.2016, 09:42
 

freedos 1,2 it' out (Announce)

Hi all,

freedos 1,2 it' ready for download

see the changes with previusly version in this table

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/...distributions/1.2/previews/1.2-rc1/compare.html

Roberto iw2evk

marcov(R)

05.11.2016, 19:03

@ iw2evk

freedos 1,2 it' out

> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/...distributions/1.2/previews/1.2-rc1/compare.html

With a Freepascal version from december 2011. Brrr.

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
05.11.2016, 22:06

@ iw2evk

freedos 1,2 it' out

> freedos 1,2 it' ready for download

This is only the first release candidate (RC1), not the final release. Testers are wanted, but honestly, there is very little time before final release. So any heavyweight fixes will probably have to wait until 1.3 or such.

Laaca(R)

Homepage

Czech republic,
07.11.2016, 14:33

@ Rugxulo

freedos 1,2 it' out

Hm, I am not impressed.
New kernel is of course good but only very few of the base utils changed. How many of them can handle LFN for example?
As Marcov said bundled Freepascal is not the newest one. Blocek is also the older version and i am pretty sure that it is the case of many others.
Why is not included the Mpxplay?
The installer does not allow any decent live FreeDOS system without installation. Maybe the installation process is fine in other aspect but I not want to risk to overwrite something...

---
DOS-u-akbar!

alexfru(R)

USA,
09.11.2016, 08:35

@ Laaca

freedos 1,2 it' out

> Hm, I am not impressed.
> New kernel is of course good but only very few of the base utils changed.
> How many of them can handle LFN for example?
> As Marcov said bundled Freepascal is not the newest one. Blocek is also the
> older version and i am pretty sure that it is the case of many others.
> Why is not included the Mpxplay?
> The installer does not allow any decent live FreeDOS system without
> installation. Maybe the installation process is fine in other aspect but I
> not want to risk to overwrite something...

You never shipped Windows. :)

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
26.12.2016, 19:03

@ Laaca

freedos 1,2 it' out

> The installer does not allow any decent live FreeDOS system without
> installation. Maybe the installation process is fine in other aspect but I
> not want to risk to overwrite something...

You're probably expected to piecemeal upgrade it yourself if the default installer isn't to your liking. (This a minor release, so there aren't any heavy changes.) After all, you're a developer, so consider yourself "expert", and go get your hands dirty.

Anyways, 1.2 final was released today (along with a revamped website):

http://www.freedos.org/
http://www.freedos.org/download

iw2evk(R)

Magenta (Italy),
27.12.2016, 13:43

@ Rugxulo

freedos 1,2 it' out

Hi,

i suspect this is only a revamping (the base files are not updated from many time).
No new functionalities are added (e.g. Direct LFN handling, multitasting or freedos GUI shell..) so i think the project are "dead" from no developpers / Mantainers of basic files of DOS core ..

Roberto iw2evk

Laaca(R)

Homepage

Czech republic,
27.12.2016, 17:36

@ iw2evk

freedos 1,2 it' out

Well, I think it is too rigorous and perhaps unfair to say this.
The kernel was updated and if I am not wrong the USB stuff by Bret Johnson is also new.

But the next big thing could be a new version of USB divers by Bret.
However you are right - we are waiting for better (or embedded) LFN driver, for full LFN awareness of all base DOS units, for something like DosShell (full multitasking is not needed IMHO, task swithich is enough).

---
DOS-u-akbar!

iw2evk(R)

Magenta (Italy),
27.12.2016, 18:01

@ Laaca

freedos 1,2 it' out

Hi Laaca and others,

yes, may be can be rigorous (i apologize for this) but most of important system files like command.com are very older..
Checking the date of release can be observed most parts of files are 3-6 years older :(

I hope for next release a "new stuff" of basic programs (core of DOS)

Roberto

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
31.12.2016, 20:16

@ Laaca

freedos 1,2 it' out

Anyone willing to try DOSEMU2 pre-release with FD 1.2? I don't have any ideal setups (still have old Ubuntu 14.04 USB jump drive with older DOSEMU), but perhaps I'll wipe that and make a Fedora liveUSB one of these days.

Just to state the obvious, it's free and supports LFNs, multitasking, and full USB. Otherwise, what can you do? I guess you could buy online ROM-DOS 7 (LFNs) or DR-DOS 7.03 (real pre-emptive multitasking but limited to 64 MB per task). Or buy Win9x or eCS (obviously, and I feel like I shouldn't have to remind anyone of that).

And if you want LFN support in basic tools, use DJGPP 2.05's CoreUtils (aka, File- Text- Shell-).

Anyways, even without all of that boring modern fluff :-D , I'm impressed by the work done by Jim, Jerome, Mateusz, et al. We should be heavily grateful for all of their work.

RayeR(R)

Homepage

CZ,
02.01.2017, 18:40

@ Rugxulo

freedos 1,2 it' out

> And if you want LFN support in basic tools, use DJGPP 2.05's CoreUtils
> (aka, File- Text- Shell-).

AFAIK DJGPP only utilize OS LFN services but doesn't work in plain DOS. You need load DOSLFN first... BTW performance of filesystem with DOSLFN loaded is some magnitude slower than WinXP DOS box on the same machine so I do all compilation works that needs LFN there...

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
02.01.2017, 22:29

@ iw2evk

freedos 1,2 it' out

> yes, may be can be rigorous (i apologize for this) but most of important
> system files like command.com are very older..
> Checking the date of release can be observed most parts of files are 3-6
> years older :(

If the 6 year old software fits the needs of the regular user...
Newer doesn't mean "better" automatically.

> I hope for next release a "new stuff" of basic programs (core of DOS)

Bring some developers and your dream will come true. :-)

tom(R)

Homepage

Germany,
03.01.2017, 13:07

@ RayeR

freedos 1,2 it' out

> > And if you want LFN support in basic tools, use DJGPP 2.05's CoreUtils
> > (aka, File- Text- Shell-).
>
> AFAIK DJGPP only utilize OS LFN services but doesn't work in plain DOS. You
> need load DOSLFN first... BTW performance of filesystem with DOSLFN loaded
> is some magnitude slower than WinXP DOS box on the same machine so I do all
> compilation works that needs LFN there...

which is completely unrelated to DOSLFN, and all about a decent cache.
SMARTDRV also made a HUGE difference in the good old times.

But I agree, working on a windows machine has a lot of advantages like big screens, multiple screens, multiple windows, even when working for DOS.

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
03.01.2017, 23:52

@ RayeR

freedos 1,2 it' out

> > And if you want LFN support in basic tools, use DJGPP 2.05's CoreUtils
> > (aka, File- Text- Shell-).
>
> AFAIK DJGPP only utilize OS LFN services but doesn't work in plain DOS. You
> need load DOSLFN first... BTW performance of filesystem with DOSLFN loaded
> is some magnitude slower than WinXP DOS box on the same machine so I do all
> compilation works that needs LFN there...

Yes, but my point was that FreeDOS proper doesn't have to be 100% LFN aware in the basic tools, just use (third-party) DJGPP tools. Of course, also as mentioned, if you direly need LFNs (and DOSLFN is too buggy or slow), use DOSEMU2 instead (which is probably a better target going forward than Win32). There are also some DJGPP cross-compilers (thanks to andrewwutw), so if compiling atop Windows or Linux is easier, there you go.

RayeR(R)

Homepage

CZ,
05.01.2017, 18:54

@ tom

freedos 1,2 it' out

> which is completely unrelated to DOSLFN, and all about a decent cache.
> SMARTDRV also made a HUGE difference in the good old times.

Of course, I use large cache but still significantly slower...

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

RayeR(R)

Homepage

CZ,
05.01.2017, 18:57

@ Rugxulo

freedos 1,2 it' out

> Yes, but my point was that FreeDOS proper doesn't have to be 100% LFN aware
> in the basic tools, just use (third-party) DJGPP tools. Of course, also as
> mentioned, if you direly need LFNs (and DOSLFN is too buggy or slow), use
> DOSEMU2 instead (which is probably a better target going forward than
> Win32). There are also some DJGPP cross-compilers (thanks to andrewwutw),
> so if compiling atop Windows or Linux is easier, there you go.

Why should be DOSEMU2 better than Win32? I know there are DJGPP cross compilers, native binaries for Win32/64, Linux and MAC OS...
BTW how DOSEMU2 performs on 64b Linux? Is it faster than DOSbox?

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
06.01.2017, 16:36

@ RayeR

freedos 1,2 it' out

> Why should be DOSEMU2 better than Win32?

Win32 is presumably going away, riding off into the sunset. Latest Win10 needs a late-model P4, which is (AFAIK) the last of the 32-bit only cpus.

Also, Windows is proprietary while DOSEMU is Free, which means it should (in theory) be easier to download, modify, redistribute, etc.

> BTW how DOSEMU2 performs on 64b Linux? Is it faster than DOSbox?

Like I said, I haven't tried it yet. But the very first bullet point mentioned in the latest prerelease (from last August) says: "KVM is now enabled by default on 64bit builds. A huge speed-up!".

EDIT: Anything is faster than DOSBox, it's a software-only emulator, intentionally portable (SDL-based), so AFAIK, there was no effort to add any x86-specific speedups there at all.

tom(R)

Homepage

Germany,
06.01.2017, 18:07

@ RayeR

freedos 1,2 it' out

> > which is completely unrelated to DOSLFN, and all about a decent cache.
> > SMARTDRV also made a HUGE difference in the good old times.
>
> Of course, I use large cache but still significantly slower...

whatever your size, nothing replaces a SMART cache. in particular write caching makes all the difference for compile type workloads.

Back to the board
Thread view  Mix view  Order
15196 Postings in 1365 Threads, 250 registered users, 14 users online (1 registered, 13 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum