Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the board
Thread view  Mix view  Order  «  
 
lucho

21.11.2007, 19:11

@ RayeR

1980s

 

Indeed, during the 1980s, the decadence took place, because, as you say, the reforms hadn't started on time. The Soviet leadership wasn't on par with its time. They didn't understand even their own society, let alone the world. So they allowed the traitors to climb to the top, masked under false words.

But we went too much off topic. This forum is about DOS, not about politics, sociology, economy, history, ideology, etc.

Matjaz(R)

Homepage E-mail

Maribor, Slovenia,
21.11.2007, 19:14

@ Japheth

... the game must go on ...

 

> Yes, the "Unschuld Vom Lande" was attacked again, as usual, by the evil
> ones. But courage, I'm sure, the millions of DOS users who silently read
> this forum are on YOUR side and will eventually condemn US.
Well... I read the forum... Silently too. But I am not impressed by Lucho. Not impressed by you either. But you at least have a sense of humor ;-)

On whose side does that put me?

Japheth(R)

Homepage

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 19:39

@ Matjaz

A small riddle

 

> On whose side does that put me?

I'm only interested in intelligent supporters.

If you can solve the following riddle, you are on my side, else on lucho's:

Which item does NOT fit into the following set? And why?

- W
- Y
- Z

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

21.11.2007, 20:06

@ Japheth

Farewell!

 

> > On whose side does that put me?
>
> I'm only interested in intelligent supporters.
>
> If you can solve the following riddle, you are on my side, else on
> lucho's:
>
> Which item does NOT fit into the following set? And why?
>
> - W
> - Y
> - Z

"W", because it's out of alphabetical order. It must be changed to "X" to fit.

Farewell!

Matjaz(R)

Homepage E-mail

Maribor, Slovenia,
21.11.2007, 20:19

@ Japheth

A small riddle

 

> Which item does NOT fit into the following set? And why?
>
> - W
> - Y
> - Z
I would say Y. When you write W or Z (CAPITAL LETTERS) you don't need to lift your pen - you can write them in one line.

Japheth(R)

Homepage

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 20:26

@ Matjaz

Solved!

 

> > Which item does NOT fit into the following set? And why?
> >
> > - W
> > - Y
> > - Z
> I would say Y. When you write W or Z (CAPITAL LETTERS) you don't need to
> lift your pen - you can write them in one line.

Y is correct. Your explanation is totally different to what I had in mind, but it is reasonable. You're on my side. Congrats! :-D

---
MS-DOS forever!

Japheth(R)

Homepage

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 20:30

@ lucho

Failed!

 

> "W", because it's out of alphabetical order. It must be changed to "X" to
> fit.

Failed! You must support yourself, sorry! :-D

---
MS-DOS forever!

Matjaz(R)

Homepage E-mail

Maribor, Slovenia,
21.11.2007, 20:37

@ Japheth

Solved!

 

> Y is correct. Your explanation is totally different to what I had in mind,
> but it is reasonable. You're on my side. Congrats! :-D
Thanx. :confused: I guess lawyers and programmers dont think in the same way :-D
What is the explanation you had in mind?

Japheth(R)

Homepage

Germany (South),
21.11.2007, 22:07

@ Matjaz

Solved!

 

> What is the explanation you had in mind?

I thought of 2 acceptable explanations

1. W and Z can be transformed to another character of the latin alphabet by rotation
2. W and Z are bosons which mediate the weak force

I have to admit, though, that your explanation is the best because it would be comprehensible even to an alien which has no knowledge of human science or alphabets.

---
MS-DOS forever!

RayeR(R)

Homepage

CZ,
22.11.2007, 00:58

@ lucho

1980s

 

> But we went too much off topic. This forum is about DOS, not about
> politics, sociology, economy, history, ideology, etc.

Maybe OT, but it was not me who flooded this thread by huge exceeding OT discusion. Wasn't previous 100 threads about the same war enough? (this is not pointed to your person only but others here).

I only expected that someone wrote:
Yes, LZ-DOS dualboot works for me it's your problem or no, it doesn't work it's common. I don't need to discuss bootmanagers its another theme.

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

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
22.11.2007, 05:35

@ lucho

Pravetz-16, etc.

 

> > Socialist societies don't work - and they leech off the success of
> "capitalist society".
>
> I don't know what is "leech off",

Leech = a small bloodsucking amimal
Leech off = suck the blood out of another organism, as a leech would

> but socialist societies did work great for many decades

More proof that you have a sense of humor.

> > That's why you have "LZ-DOS" and "Pravetz-16" - both of which are
> > Microsoft software renamed. Hell, "Pravetz-16" still has the Microsoft
> > Copyright clause in it, it's more obvious than LZ-DOS.
>
> Pravetz-16 is a computer, not a program. If you mean the P16DOS Assembler,
> the Microsoft copyright notice there is from the run-time library of the
> Microsoft C compiler, which was used to compile the executable file, and
> is by no means an indication that the program itself was written by
> Micrisoft. You should have known this if you've worked with this compiler.
> In general, most compilers' run-time libraries leave their "stamp" in the
> executable file.

Another one of your favorite jokes: Change the subject rather than respond to the real point. "Pravets-16 DOS Macro Assembler" has the internal and external IDs "MASM". Which compiler library put it there? If not placed by the library, and not really MASM, then it's a countefeit.

tom(R)

Homepage

Germany,
22.11.2007, 12:39

@ lucho

LZ-DOS 7.1 *IS* MSDOS 7.1

 

> > Neither of those are particularly appealing to me, especially since I've
> > already proven this is the MS-DOS kernel (or the 0.0000001% chance that
> > it's merely reverse engineered & stolen code, which is no better).
>
> You proved that the small kernel loader is the same as in MS-DOS 7.10 (as
> is by the way the boot sector whose work it continues), but you can't
> prove anything about the real kernel itself until you can unpack it.

Lucho, I know that you don't accept the concept of 'copyright', but that
does mean you may act just stupid (or just lazy).

LZDOS can be easily unpacked - by booting it.

what I did:
create a MSDOS 7.1 floppy with
IO.SYS
command.com (freedos)
mem.exe (freedos)
debug.com (freedos)
autoexec.bat (empty)
config.sys (just containing DOS=LOW)

create a LZDOS 7.1 floppy with IO.SYS replaced by 'LZDOS' IO.SYS

boot this 2 maschines to compare

a:>MEM
says 488 KB free (DOS is loaded low) in both cases. so what ?

a:>MEM /D
lists addresses of all devices in the system. *ALL* devices are at the
same address. That's interesting, but maybe a really undocumented
secret requires that.

OK, lets look at the devices themself; lets look at the code of
the COM4 device handler (mem /d has provided the address).

a:>debug
-d 70:DC

strange, looks identical on both maschines.
take the 4'th word; it's the address of COM4->interupt handler
u 70:2b8
...

still identical, so the conclusion is inevitable:
the COM4 'interrupt' handler is identical (instruction for instruction),
which for me ends this discussion.

if you want to prove *YOUR* point (that LZDOS is created by some sibirian
genius),

do the same for the CON device, CLOCK device, or any other device.
disassmble the INT 21/INT 2f handler, and show us any (significant)
difference.

otherwise just admit, that this genius just removed some MS startup screen,
and compressed the MS 7.1 kernel (which is remarkable and welcomed,
nevertheless)

I hope that ends this war, and we can get back to technical issues.

Tom

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
22.11.2007, 14:56

@ Japheth

Solved??

 

> > What is the explanation you had in mind?
>
> I thought of 2 acceptable explanations
>
> 1. W and Z can be transformed to another character of the latin alphabet
> by rotation
> 2. W and Z are bosons which mediate the
> weak force
>
> I have to admit, though, that your explanation is the best because it
> would be comprehensible even to an alien which has no knowledge of human
> science or alphabets.

There are other potential differences:

= Y is sometimes considered a vowel: "A,E,I,O,U and sometimes Y".
= W is not part of the original Roman alphabet (which lacked J, U, W). In such cases, you had to use I or V (despite what some Latin textbooks would have you believe).

And, actually, you speak German, no? I know almost nothing about it, but isn't W pronounced like English V and Z like English TS ("Mot-sart")? And yet, Y is (probably?) pronounced the same in both (Germanic languages), right?.

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
22.11.2007, 14:59

@ lucho

Book author?

 

> If he really wrote a book (albeit I doubt), that would surely make a
> difference.

AFAIK, sol is not known for his text composing. He's just a normal schmoe like the rest of us, I guess. :-P

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
22.11.2007, 16:58

@ RayeR

LZ-DOS 7.1

 

> But I'd like to know if LZ-DOS provides something more than compatability
> with win 9x/3x (there are aslo pathes for MSDOS7) and less size. If there
> are some noticable kernel changes to make it run faster/less memory usage
> or it's jus a copy (like AMD made intel 386, 486 clones).

BTW, I'm no computer historian, but AFAIK, AMD was something like an official 3rd-party producer of 286 chips. It wasn't until the 386 that Intel went exclusively with Compaq. (Or something like that.) And let's not forget famous chips (even if obscure to me) like the "fast" NEC V20/V30s, which improved quite a bit upon Intel's offering. So, I don't exactly consider AMD a horrible company ripping off Intel (not that you or anybody else probably does either).

(Corrections and clarifications to the above facts welcome.)

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
22.11.2007, 21:28

@ Rugxulo

LZ-DOS 7.1

 

> BTW, I'm no computer historian, but AFAIK, AMD was something like an
> official 3rd-party producer of 286 chips. It wasn't until the 386 that
> Intel went exclusively with Compaq. (Or something like that.)

That's true. "Prior to this, the difficulty of making chips and the uncertainty of reliable supply required that any mass-market semiconductor be multi-sourced, that is, made by two or more manufacturers, the second and subsequent ones manufacturing under license from the designer." (from Intel 80386)

A great book about such stuff is Inside Intel by Tim Jackson. :-)

Back to the board
Thread view  Mix view  Order  «  
 
15113 Postings in 1359 Threads, 249 registered users, 12 users online (0 registered, 12 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum