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 Rugxulo(R) Homepage, Usono, 12.12.2009, 12:03

> > > I'm pretty sure this guy is only interested in modern Windows these
> > days.
> I think this is bit unfair, I mean why shouldn't Geoff only care about
> what is on the whole the "current" area. He is after-all only one person
> and there is a limit to what we can all do. Indeed I have only recently
> got into Freedos myself as I wanted to make use of it for projects however
> I'm here as I'm keen to also feed back into FreeDOS/other projects. I'm
> learning a lot from these forums about FreeDOS/other things simply because
> I was so out of touch with what has happened (as I had moved onto many
> other things), now it's in my interest hence I'm dusting off stuff.
> That's just me but I can fully understand why Geoff needs to limit the
> areas that he is working with.

I just meant that obviously DOS isn't as popular as it once was, and obviously this guy has a heavy interest in Windows. I'm not blaming him, but yeah, I do still like and use DOS, so obviously I'm biased. :-D

> > Modern Windows, yes, for the last decade. Whenever a write-up of a
> Windows
> > shell function goes as far as doing a bug history,
> > I still cover all the
> > 32-bit Windows versions that run on DOS, but that's it for my
> involvement
> > even with the old Windows, let alone with DOS.
> Thanks Geoff, being aware of your work at a high level I hadn't even
> realized you were still being as kind as to go that far back. It is
> appreciated.

I use Windows all the time, but it is definitely a bit weird in some areas.

> > > Hence, I blindly guess he's never even tried DR-DOS (and probably
> > doesn't know how good / compatible it is) or others.
> Likewise I'm in full support of Geoff here - I have never cared much for
> DR-DOS in days of old. That said I did see it and use it under Netware.
>
> > Never tried, never knew, and never saw that supporting it should be a
> DOS
> > programmer's general responsibility no matter how good it might be. And
> I
> > kept to the latter view even while helping Caldera's anti-trust suit.
> Fair enough. Still really good to see you on here Geoff. Thanks for
> coming.

In all fairness, I completely understand that DR-DOS isn't nearly as popular. However, it's very good, it does plenty of goodies (more than MS, even), and it's very compatible. It's basically the successor to CP/M-86. Owned by Digital Research, Novell, Caldera, Lineo, DeviceLogics, DR-DOS Inc. But it's dead now, I guess, last updated in early 1999 (7.03). While you can ignore it with impunity, it's indeed a valid choice (well, it was ... lack of LBA or FAT32 really hurts, 64 MB limit for each task, can't even see all FAT16 partitions easily, etc.).

It's kinda weird with Windows: you could either say "hey, let's make it run on all DOSes" (wouldn't that be more income?) or "meh, we don't have time, don't care". They chose the latter path, so that kinda drowned out DR-DOS. But the DR guys never updated it much either, so part of the blame goes to them. Thankfully we have FreeDOS, else we'd really be suffering!!

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15196 Postings in 1365 Threads, 250 registered users, 9 users online (0 registered, 9 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum