Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

Phil Gardner's Wrapper.sys & MS-DOS7 bug (Miscellaneous)

posted by cm(R) Homepage E-mail, Düsseldorf, Germany, 11.12.2009, 16:02

> In this case, I think he
> also means "I'm no longer actively interested in DOS".

This is what I meant.

> Eh? No, AFAIK, MS-DOS 7.10 means Win95 OSR2 or Win98 or Win98SE, as
> nothing earlier supported FAT32.

Exactly.

> (Even DR-DOS only had an unofficial TSR,
> which I blindly guess was pulled when they discovered MS had patents on
> it, ugh.)

Are you talking about the TSR supposedly (i.e. we never got it) able to run Windows 4.x, or about DRFAT32 ?

> FreeDOS, as you probably know, by default uses 6.22 as the FAT16 kernel
> versions and 7.00 (or 7.10, I forget) for FAT32-enabled versions.

It is 7.10, as 7.00 won't make sense.

> Maybe
> ROM-DOS does the same, I dunno.

Pretty sure they have their own build numbers (currently 4.x.something? there are some neat calls to get version strings and numerical values), the "6.22" or "7.10" labels are just extending the version fakery to the user.

> My copy of DR-DOS 7.03 is definitely not
> LFN aware (except in very few places, e.g. COMMAND.COM),

Probably the later COMMAND.COM beta versions, I don't think the original 7.03 COMMAND.COM supported LFNs.

> > Yes. Consider that LFN functions even have an explicit installation
> check
> > (21.71A0) which indicates whether LFNs are supported on a particular
> > drive. There isn't such an explicit function for FAT32. Therefore it's
> not
> > surprising that software checks the DOS version number for FAT32
> support.
>
> Obviously you can use LFNs in any FAT, e.g. FAT12, FAT16, FAT32.

Obviously, yes. Did my answer seem ambiguous?

> I'm pretty sure this guy is only interested in modern Windows these days.

I'm pretty sure that's right but he probably still reads our answers, so you might as well address him directly.

> They all have bugs, and if you run into one, you either ignore it, abandon
> the project (no!), or work around it. Even the hallowed "original" MS-DOS
> has quite a few annoying quirks and bugs.

Understatement. However, with MS-DOS it's the application programmers who have to work around DOS's bugs. This is the definitive advantage of open source: the first (app) programmer who had to work around the bug can integrate it into the main program, or at least report the bug.

> I've actually been (local only) updating my mini distro's disk #3, and a
> good deal of stuff on there is (funnily enough) for compatibility or bug
> fixes with other DOS-ish OSes.

Isn't it a FreeDOS distro? Or is it supposed to allow exchanging the kernel?

---
l

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15110 Postings in 1359 Threads, 247 registered users, 14 users online (1 registered, 13 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum