DOS ain't dead

Hi,
I found yesterday a site with new device logics dr-dos 8.1 for download
I did only a quick test boot from a floppy but didn't very pleased:
-drods's himem.sys claims to have UMB management included but with very few drivers I got too low memory (~560kB).
-I tried to run taskmgr.exe but it doesn't run because "incorrect dos version"
BTW does anybody hacked taskmgr to run on other DOSes?
-I cannot run Dos navigator (6.4.0), it hangs.
-I don't like the order how FAT32 partitions are assigned to drive letters (C: was hd0 1st partition, follewed by D: E: F: FAT32 parttitions and then other FAT16 partitions. Normally I had FAT32 partitions at end), I use MSDOS/FreeDOS order. But I don't know if it's configurable somewhere...

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

DR-DOS 8.1 is in the fact old 7.03 with some patches from Enhanced DR-DOS by Udo Kunt - without his permission (in principle they stole it). Due it they later had to remove it from DRDOS.COM site.
Anyway - I have similar problems with EDR-DOS too. It even doesn't work on my machine (most probably it isn't compatible with my boot manager). On my second computer it runs but has various bugs and I don't like it.

---
DOS-u-akbar!

> my machine (most probably it isn't compatible with my boot manager). On my
> second computer it runs but has various bugs and I don't like it.

Yes, I found drdos (various prev. versions i tried) quite buggy so I don't use it, just have ready one DRDOS 7.03 boot floppy with taskmgr handy. But I like tro try varoius (D)OSes :)

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

> -drods's himem.sys claims to have UMB management included but with very
> few drivers I got too low memory (~560kB).

This issue was solved, I didn't have enabled UMB by himem.sys parameter. But I get only 64MB of XMS.

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

DR-DOS 8.1 kernel is patched Udo`s EDR-DOS 7.1.0.6 with collect of old
utilities from others authors? The DR-DOS breaks GPL-d licence.
David

> Hi,
> I found yesterday a site with new device logics dr-dos 8.1 for download
> I did only a quick test boot from a floppy but didn't very pleased:
> -drods's himem.sys claims to have UMB management included but with very
> few drivers I got too low memory (~560kB).

You eventually say you got it working (but limited to 64 MB). That's probably due to using XMSv2 only. And actually, 560k is quite good for conventional memory. (What apps refuse to run with so "little" memory? Most everything I use accepts < 600k.)

> -I tried to run taskmgr.exe but it doesn't run because "incorrect dos
> version"
> BTW does anybody hacked taskmgr to run on other DOSes?

No SETVER included? Oh well. Anyways, TASKMGR relies heavily on DRDOS' EMM386 (according to Udo), so you kinda can't use it (easily?) on other DOSes, AFAIK.

> -I cannot run Dos navigator (6.4.0), it hangs.

DNOSP has issues (e.g. RAM drives) unlike the original or NDN. Also, it's now discontinued, so good luck getting those bugs fixed (although I guess you or somebody could patch it although that sounds unlikely). I prefer NDN actually but haven't tried DNOSP much since (didn't need it). Plus, I think you need Borland Pascal to recompile it (unlike closed src NDN which ironically uses free Virtual Pascal + DOS patches).

> -I don't like the order how FAT32 partitions are assigned to drive letters
> (C: was hd0 1st partition, follewed by D: E: F: FAT32 parttitions and then
> other FAT16 partitions. Normally I had FAT32 partitions at end), I use
> MSDOS/FreeDOS order. But I don't know if it's configurable somewhere...

AFAIK, (and rr will probably back me up on this re: his DRVEXCH), DR-DOS has a completely different way of assigning drive letters to partitions. So, despite the whole "100% compatible" spiel, you have to accept some incompatibilities/quirks.

P.S. I use DR-DOS a lot on my old P166, but honestly, as good as it is, even with multitasking, I don't see it as a "killer app" (vs. FreeDOS, for example). And anyways, it has bugs (like anything) but apparently isn't actively updated. Still, it's cool (even if almost no apps support it's multitasking API, it's not very popular, etc.) even if I don't really use the multitasking at all (Can anybody describe a decent scenario that would heavily benefit from it? Searching for files? Compiling big projects? Copying or archiving lots of files? Man, we could definitely use some DOS tools that did those things, at least. Sorry, but NDN's background copy doesn't seem to work at all yet.).

BTW, is it just me or does someone really really really need to make a DOS-oriented distro (DOSBox, DOSEMU, QEMU) of GNU/Linux or FreeBSD or whatever? I'm surprised no one's done it yet (and Slax "Kill Bill" doesn't count although it's better / more compatible than most, has WINE too). That would pretty much cover the whole "gotta have USB and multitasking" as well as "gotta run my favorite DOS apps".

EDIT: If you visit the SLAX! site, beware the screenshots page (for those easily offended, esp. anybody with kids or wives or conscience or whatever, blargh!).

> DR-DOS 8.1 kernel is patched Udo`s EDR-DOS 7.1.0.6 with collect of old
> utilities from others authors? The DR-DOS breaks GPL-d licence.
> David

Hm. I expected more. Then hail to http://www.vetusware.com pirates to make it free againg, hehe

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

> probably due to using XMSv2 only. And actually, 560k is quite good for

OK, changing memory manager wouldn't be problem. Just wonder how new DOS version had too old XMS support.

> conventional memory. (What apps refuse to run with so "little" memory?
> Most everything I use accepts < 600k.)

solved by /chipset=ram switch

> No SETVER included? Oh well. Anyways, TASKMGR relies heavily on EMM386
> (according to Udo), so you kinda can't use it (easily?) on other DOSes,
> AFAIK.

I often readen that taskmgr is fully dependent to novell/drdos emm386 but in my case I CAN run taskgr WITHOUT emm386 under DRDOS. I think the oly problem is some OS version check which needs to be removed.
And taskmgr is for me the most valuable thing on DRDOS than other DOSes doesn't have. Without it it's uninteresting for me and rather use FreeDOS or MSDOS...

> DNOSP has issues (e.g. RAM drives) unlike the original or NDN. Also, it's
> now discontinued, so good luck getting them fixed (although I guess you or
> somebody could patch it although unlikely). I prefer NDN actually
> but haven't tried DSOSP much (didn't need it).

I currently like rather DNOSP because it runs good in all DOS/Win9x/NT so I can have only one version to use it everywhere. NDN dos version have still some problems running under NT. I reported it to NDN forum and hope will be fixed.

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

> Hm. I expected more. Then hail to
> http://www.vetusware.com pirates to
> make it free againg, hehe

Not recommended, even if DR-DOS is basically stagnant. Granted, the OpenDOS fiasco (as I call it) didn't help anybody anywhere (still not sure why they bothered or even why they closed src up again). Anyways, despite its limitations, $35 ain't bad for a multitasking DOS (FAT16 only). They should hire Udo and contribute their own expertise to FreeDOS, ROM DOS, RxDOS, etc. (but that's just my lowly opinion). BTW, what ever happened to Matthias Paul?? Oh well, whatever.

Too bad people/developers lose interest in things so quickly (FreeDOS-32, ELKS, DR-DOS). This is why we all need to do our best to make free software better and available to everyone. I mean, computers are cool and fun (if they work), and nobody should have a working computer collecting dust due to no decent OS. And I'm a big fan of backwards compatibility (who isn't?). I don't think we need to let old software die if it works perfectly well. Everything new always seems to be bigger, more bloated, slower, etc. without any reason. Oh well, guess I'm just a silly idealist!

> OK, changing memory manager wouldn't be problem. Just wonder how new DOS
> version had too old XMS support.

Well, it's not a "new" DOS, it's barely updated since Novell owned it. Besides, most DOS software doesn't need > 64 MB XMS anyways.

> solved by /chipset=ram switch

I guess you know that UMBPCI works in FreeDOS, right? It also works in MS-DOS and DR-DOS too. But just FYI, that's not a unique feature.

> And taskmgr is for me the most valuable thing on DRDOS than other DOSes
> doesn't have. Without it it's uninteresting for me and rather use FreeDOS
> or MSDOS...

Well, there are a few things like that: OpenGem/XM, SEAL (buggy), DesqView (abandoned? dead? locked up?). And MS-DOS 6.22 had DOSSHELL (task switching in conv. mem. at least ... not true multitasking but better than nothing).

There's also REAL/32, TSX-DOS, and other weird DOS-ish clones that I'm not really familiar with and have barely any perception of.

There are specific DOS programs and unofficial interfaces that support multitasking (TP unit, DJGPP's pthreads port, MT, LWP, NDN's background copying, ESP archiver's Tetris or Snake game, XS compiler, some DOS Forths) but that seems to be overlooked (unstable? unpopular? too hard to use?).

EDIT: Forgot about TriDOS (which sol has said is too unstable and could cause data corruption, doh!). Maybe somebody will fix it one of these days. (Hey, it could happen! It should, at least in my opinion. Maybe I'll do it one day, God willing!) *not impossible but very doubtful*

Some (lazy) people would just suggest you drop DOS (and all its apps which you use/write) in favor of: Linux, Windows, Minix, FreeBSD, OctaOS. Granted, that's not a horrible solution, but it ain't perfect. (Minix is lightweight but doesn't support SSE or even maybe? MMX or FPU, I forget. OctaOS doesn't have a full C library yet plus lacking docs so it's a bit quirky and requires at least a 586. Linux 2.6.x (e.g. latest PuppyLinux) requires 128 MB RAM, last I heard. tomsrtbt is too minimal and overformatted/potentially incompatible and yet DamnSmallLinux, which rocks, is still quite imperfect, seemingly requiring 32 MB minimum, e.g. more than Win95. Menuet32 barely works on 32 MB and is too quirky/wimpy for my tastes although it's nicely done. I dunno what FreeBSD requires, at least a 486DX last I heard.)

> I currently like rather DNOSP because it runs good in all DOS/Win9x/NT so
> I can have only one version to use it everywhere. NDN dos version have
> still some problems running under NT. I reported it to NDN forum and hope
> will be fixed.

NDN has more features but is closed src (not trying to complain because I mostly? don't care, just stating the facts). It has been updated a lot until recently (thesis and job issues of the author). I expect it will continue to get better. It does a few things that DNOSP doesn't (e.g. disasm view). But yeah, feel free to use both (emphasis on free).

> And I'm a big fan of backwards compatibility
> (who isn't?).

Sadly I have a lot of friends who don't care about compatability. They Installed Vista and just say don't use obsolete SW, get new version. Or trash a few years old HW if it haven't Vista drivers, it's crap. Or say I don't want x86 instructions just need Linux. They looked at me and wonder how it is possible that someone can still use near 10-years old Win98SE and even such archeologic artifact called DOS!? OMFG! But I'm not afraid of.

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

> I often readen that taskmgr is fully dependent to novell/drdos emm386 but
> in my case I CAN run taskgr WITHOUT emm386 under DRDOS. I think the oly
> problem is some OS version check which needs to be removed.
> And taskmgr is for me the most valuable thing on DRDOS than other DOSes
> doesn't have. Without it it's uninteresting for me and rather use FreeDOS
> or MSDOS...

AFAIK, the Task Manager can support task switching (on a 286 ... pause a program, run another, then come back to #1), but for real multitasking you need 386+ (V86 mode) as well as EMM386 (which includes multitasking guts, according to Udo, if I understood him correctly). Trying to use TASKMGR outside of DR-DOS is moot, especially since it's non-free (in any sense of the word). Of course, the free alternative (TriDOS) doesn't work with Pmode programs (ugh), which kinda is a big flaw since DJGPP and OpenWatcom/DOS4GW are so popular.

Hmmm, TriDOS: MASM src + multitasking + DPMI server, if only there was one or two people around here willing to set differences aside and take a look.

> Sadly I have a lot of friends who don't care about compatability. They
> Installed Vista and just say don't use obsolete SW, get new version. Or
> trash a few years old HW if it haven't Vista drivers, it's crap. Or say I
> don't want x86 instructions just need Linux. They looked at me and wonder
> how it is possible that someone can still use near 10-years old Win98SE
> and even such archeologic artifact called DOS!? OMFG! But I'm not
> afraid of.

Not to say Vista sucks, but ...

1). No full-screen CMD prompt at all!
2). 32 MB DPMI limit
3). Weird bugs (no symlink support for DOS apps, duped entries in root dir via DOS findfirst function).

Vista does some things well (eh, ACPI? Multitasking? GUI?), but DOS compatibility ain't one of 'em. And it surely can't be that hard to implement (for MS, for freak's sake, since they invented DOS!). And yet, DOS is hated badly, maybe even by them (why??). Granted, it got out of hand "back in the day" with shareware, expensive commercial software, etc. Sure, a programmer may decide to make his living off software, but that's not DOS's fault. Money isn't evil, but requiring too much can be a hindrance to getting things done (well, for us commoners, anyways).

Oh well, whatever, people still like DJGPP, old DOS games, MPXPLAY, so they still download FreeDOS. As long as I'm still alive, I've got plenty of things/projects/ideas for free DOS stuff to work on (as well as bug reports, heh, since I'm not that great a coder).

> I guess you know that UMBPCI works in FreeDOS, right? It also works in
> MS-DOS and DR-DOS too. But just FYI, that's not a unique feature.

Yes I'm satisfied with UMBPCI under MSDOS and FreeDOS.

> Well, there are a few things like that: OpenGem/XM, SEAL (buggy), DesqView
> (abandoned? dead? locked up?). And MS-DOS 6.22 had DOSSHELL (task switching
> in conv. mem. at least ... not true multitasking but better than nothing).

I found taskmg is the best. It's small and preemtive (backgroud is running) and don't eat much low memory as desqview. It can hadnle also PMode apps, I was able to switch 2 Quake games and DN :)

> There's also REAL/32, TSX-DOS, and other weird DOS-ish clones that I'm not
> really familiar with and have barely any perception of.

I heared of them, I have a copy of REAL/32 TSX I didn't find yet. But I expect this will be less compatible than plain dos without such advanced features. Nice on taskmgr is that can be loaded when needed.

> Some (lazy) people would just suggest you drop DOS (and all its apps which
> you use/write) in favor of: Linux, Windows, Minix, FreeBSD, OctaOS.

Yes, see above post :)

> NDN has more features but is closed src (not trying to complain because I
> mostly? don't care, just stating the facts). It has been updated a lot
> until recently (thesis and job issues of the author). I expect it will
> continue to get better. It does a few things that DNOSP doesn't (e.g.
> disasm view). But yeah, feel free to use both (emphasis on free).

I know NDN has more features. E.g. DISASM view is nice. Also it's nice to have NDN Linux version because I still see on MC as some poor Volkov clone :) DN rulez.

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

> Not to say Vista sucks, but ...

I say it sucks. But I don't force it to vista users it doesn't have any effect.

> 1). No full-screen CMD prompt at all!
> 2). 32 MB DPMI limit
> 3). Weird bugs (no symlink support for DOS apps, duped entries in root dir
> via DOS findfirst function).

And I read about limitation of running VESA graphics because some crippled WDDM display drivers. But be kind to this poor NTVDM because Vista 64 doesn't have any (or have?)

> Vista does some things well (eh, ACPI? Multitasking? GUI?), but DOS
> compatibility ain't one of 'em. And it surely can't be that hard to

XP also does it well. Fot me there's no advantage on vista I can't get in XP. I'm not HC gamer of latest games so I don't need DX10. Vista eats more RAM, CPU and lot of HDD space with some garbage I would never use and immediatelly replace it by 3rd party's SW. The problem will rise when a lot of new apps (which I'll need for work such as OrCAD) will run Vista only, then I'll be forced to upgrade but no earlier. Keeping resist :)

> Oh well, whatever, people still like DJGPP, old DOS games, MPXPLAY, so
> they still download FreeDOS. As long as I'm still alive, I've got plenty
> of things/projects/ideas for free DOS stuff to work on (as well as bug
> reports, heh, since I'm not that great a coder).

Fully agree. I'll too will keep to write my DOS SW (with advantage of DJGPP triyng make it source-portable for compiling also under MinGW and Linux version if possible).

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

> > DR-DOS 8.1 kernel is patched Udo`s EDR-DOS 7.1.0.6 with collect of old
> > utilities from others authors? The DR-DOS breaks GPL-d licence.
> > David
>
> Hm. I expected more. Then hail to
> http://www.vetusware.com pirates to
> make it free againg, hehe

Just a quick look at the Vetusware site shows a lot of old (!) commercial apps as well as some (mostly outdated) freeware. In particular, though, I wonder why anybody would want the following instead of better alternatives:

TASM            (LZASM, FASM, NASM, OCTASM)
SMARTDRV        (UIDE, LBACACHE)
A86             (WASM, ArrowASM, OpenWatcom's WASM)
ACROREAD        (XPDF, DOSPDF)
NEOPAINT        (VGAPaint/386)
ASIC            (FreeBASIC, Moonrock, BASM286)
AUTOCAD         (DESICAD?)
AZTEC C         (OpenWatcom, Dev86DOS, Turbo C, DJGPP, CC386)
BATTLECHESS     (Rose's Chess, Ken's Chess, Chenard, Minimax)
BLOOD           (Ken's Labyrinth)
BC++            (see "Aztec C" above)
BRIEF           (VIM, VILE, JASSPA, TDE, FED, FTE)
COMMANDER KEEN  (Jetpack, Alien Carnage)
DR. SOLOMON     (F-PROT, RHBVS, older compile of CLAMSCAN)
DR WEB SPYDER   (latest Arachne or DOS-Lynx)
MS F77          (GNU/DJGPP G77)
FreeDOS B9RC3   (uh ... my updated mini distro? anyone??)
GW-BASIC        (BWBASIC, SmallBASIC, UBASIC)
IBM DOS 1.1     (anything from /dev/random, actually, heh)
IDA Pro 4.5     (freeware version??, BIEW)
King's Quest    (Lure of the Temptress)
LSICQ           (again, anything from /dev/random since this no longer works)
Linux 0.99      (also DOS-MINIX? ELKS boot image? NetBSD? OctaOS?)
MASM            (OpenWatcom's WASM)
NORTON CMNDR    (DOSZip, DC-SK)
Personal C      (Desmet C)
PKUNZIP         (Info-Zip, p7zip)
QEMM            (JEMM386)
Raptor          (Major Stryker)
Spear of Dest.  (dunno, NetHack:SMASH 'EM ???)
SYMDEB          (GRDB, OpenWatcom's WD, 386SWAT)
TopSpeed M2     (FST 4.0 Modula 2)
Zortech C       (Digital Mars w/ HXRT or stubbed by WDOSX?)

Granted, if any original copyright holders want to make this stuff free, be my guest! Otherwise, I'm sticking to freeware. (I'm sure Steve knows of a bunch of stuff I'm forgetting, too.)

> And I read about limitation of running VESA graphics because some crippled
> WDDM display drivers. But be kind to this poor NTVDM because Vista 64
> doesn't have any (or have?)

There's no V86 mode in 64-bit, so you have to emulate the cpu (DOSEMU, DOSBox) or do without (Win64).

EDIT: I've heard that 64-bit is like 10% faster, though. So at least there's some advantage besides market hype (or whatever).

> XP also does it well. Fot me there's no advantage on vista I can't get in
> XP.

I have been using XP on my P4 for about five years, and Vista does indeed have issues that XP doesn't. I don't hate Vista (preloaded on laptop), and I can run QEMU or use other cpus for DOS stuff, but still ... kinda annoying since you'd think they'd get it working. Maybe that's what SP1 is for (or maybe not, ugh). There are things Vista is better at, but I'm too dumb/inexperienced to really say for sure (maybe Wikipedia knows?).

> LSICQ           (again, anything from /dev/random since this no longer works)

BSFlite works with ICQ.

---
Forum admin

> Yes I'm satisfied with UMBPCI under MSDOS and FreeDOS.

And JEMMEX, of course.

> I found taskmgr is the best. It's small and preemtive (backgroud is
> running) and don't eat much low memory as desqview. It can hadnle also
> PMode apps, I was able to switch 2 Quake games and DN :)

Not sure why you need to run DN and Quake (x 2!) at the same time.

But yeah, maybe DRDOS, Inc. should open source TASKMGR when/if they get ??? amount of money (pay the bills, etc). Then again, I know that's impossible and laughable to some people that I even pretend that such could happen. Oh well, whatever's best for them, I guess. They probably need to hire some more programmers to get a "real" 8.x out the door.

> I heared of them, I have a copy of REAL/32 TSX I didn't find yet. But I
> expect this will be less compatible than plain dos without such advanced
> features. Nice on taskmgr is that can be loaded when needed.

I think multitasking is somewhat overrated (dare I say that? I can hear the boos already, heh!). Compiling in the background, listening to music, searching for files, copying, archiving/backing up, okay ... but otherwise, who cares? I'm sure somebody out there could (has already?) made it easy to write such apps (like aforementioned methods). Too bad I'm too lazy/busy/stupid to do it myself. I seem to only do tiny, incremental things (like my recent DISKCOPY or XCOPY 1.4 "dir attrib" patch ... better than nothing, I suppose).

> Yes, see above post :)

Maybe Minix 3.x is the future for those of us who dislike Linux's bloat. (I hear it's got virtual memory, more or less.) Or we could always just use "old" Minix-VMD or DOS-Minix. But like I said, I dunno about MMX, FPU, SSE. Then again, 99% of DOS programs don't need (or want) those either.

> I know NDN has more features. E.g. DISASM view is nice. Also it's nice to
> have NDN Linux version because I still see on MC as some poor Volkov clone
> :) DN rulez.

DOSZip is nice too. But I usually just poke around on the cmdline unless copying to/from dirs a lot.

> They looked at me and wonder
> how it is possible that someone can still use near 10-years old Win98SE
> and even such archeologic artifact called DOS!? OMFG! But I'm not
> afraid of.

My old 486 Sx/25 is perfect for games like King's Quest 5 or 6 and Tie Fighter (as well as others in that vein). I mean, I'm not old, but heck, I remember the old green/gray GameBoy as being decent (as well as the competitors of the time: GameGear and Lynx). Some people forget (or never knew) that you can indeed have fun or get work done on such "old, useless" machines. Granted, you won't be compiling/running Firefox easily, but they weren't THAT bad!

> Yes, I found drdos (various prev. versions i tried) quite buggy so I don't
> use it, just have ready one DRDOS 7.03 boot floppy with taskmgr handy. But
> I like tro try varoius (D)OSes :)

FreeDOS is buggy too, but at least you can patch/fix/recompile it if needed! That's the big advantage of FOSS stuff, you don't have to wait/pay anybody to do it if you are willing and able to do it yourself.

1). Identify the bug.
2). Get a compiler + source and start hacking!
3). Post fix online for everyone to enjoy.

DR-DOS has a few minor bugs, but it's pretty good overall. I made a small list of such bugs, but I dunno if they were just setup issues (e.g. DR-EMM386 loaded, "dpmi on", RAM drive, other settings). Still, if you or anybody wants to see it, I'll upload it. But like I said, I may have misdiagnosed some bugs (e.g. SORT.EXE crashes with input of exactly two duplicate lines, IIRC).

> There are things Vista is better at, but I'm too
> dumb/inexperienced to really say for sure (maybe Wikipedia knows?).

Mean Aero, larger icons, DRM, UAC, etc. useless things? :) Well I can't say. I have Vista only in VMWare and didn't play with it much yet.

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

> Mean Aero, larger icons, DRM, UAC, etc. useless things? :) Well I can't
> say. I have Vista only in VMWare and didn't play with it much yet.

Aero (prettier than XP??) can be disabled (as will be if you replace the video driver with one from XP, which breaks some apps like [supposedly] Chess Titans). Larger icons due to using .PNG now (??). DRM isn't an issue unless your cpu plays HD content (some laptops, e.g. Sony Vaio??, play HD DVD). UAC is just so you don't accidentally run everything as Admin.

There's also a new search menu feature that's much faster. ReadyBoost, SpeedStore, hybrid sleep ... I dunno how much of that is new or just improved, but that (plus DX10 ... soon 10.1 w/ SP1) plus more kernel hooks for antivirus progs, etc. Oh yeah, and some new default games (at least with my Home Premium: Mahjongg Titans, Chess Titans, Purble Place, Inkball ... but they removed 3D Space Cadet Pinball). IE7 and WMP11 are available for XP too, but I think they were planned more for Vista. I dunno, SP1 beta is supposedly being tested now, but I dunno how much it will improve (beyond what daily updates already "fixed", I mean).

And, just to be fair, Vista may not be that cheap, but eComStation is even worse. I dunno, some here may frown on capitalism (I don't but only because I'm too young/dumb to really have such an opinion), but my only gripe is that it seems almost a "free for all", no holds barred, do whatever you want especially with arbitrary laws that have no grounding in common sense. But at least competition exists (even if sometimes it seems like only because of money, ugh).

> My old 486 Sx/25 is perfect for games like King's Quest 5 or 6 and
> Tie Fighter (as well as others in that vein). I mean, I'm not old, but
> heck, I remember the old green/gray GameBoy as being decent (as well as
> the competitors of the time: GameGear and Lynx). Some people forget (or
> never knew) that you can indeed have fun or get work done on such "old,
> useless" machines. Granted, you won't be compiling/running Firefox easily,
> but they weren't THAT bad!

Agree. And also demoscene, that ages when coding was art...
I don't have much room to have 2 PC on the table so I'm trying to make most of old progs running on current HW. There are many issues but it's challenge.

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

> Agree. And also demoscene, that ages when coding was art...
> I don't have much room to have 2 PC on the table so I'm trying to make
> most of old progs running on current HW. There are many issues but it's
> challenge.

I find QEMU a good program (although imperfect) to consolidate PCs/OSes, but I haven't tested the alternatives (e.g. rr likes BOCHS, but I hear it's too slow). Japheth mentioned VirtualBox, but without knowing if it's better than QEMU, I haven't bothered. Some people like VMware, too (you + Vista?). And VirtualPC won't install on Vista Home. Oh well.

P.S. The main reason I got a laptop instead of a desktop was to save space. I don't travel that much, just didn't want to have yet more clutter. (But there are mini towers which look nice as far as size goes. Too bad the ultra-big monitors these days negate any space savings!)

> Vista does some things well (eh, ACPI? Multitasking? GUI?), but DOS
> compatibility ain't one of 'em. And it surely can't be that hard to
> implement

Does Vista still have a COMMAND.COM, like XP? If so, have you tried using
a replacement? If you try it and it works, I might get a Vista machine.

> (for MS, for freak's sake, since they invented DOS!).

IBM invented DOS.

> > (for MS, for freak's sake, since they invented DOS!).
>
> IBM invented DOS.

Tim Paterson invented DOS.

---
Forum admin

> > IBM invented DOS.
>
> Tim Paterson invented DOS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_Operating_System

> Does Vista still have a COMMAND.COM, like XP? If so, have you tried using
> a replacement? If you try it and it works, I might get a Vista
> machine.

N.B. where and clip are new commands to Vista (as well as mklink, setx, tasklist, taskkill, schtasks, waitfor, etc.).

[ Vista ] - Thu 11/22/2007 >where /t command | clip

     50648   11/2/2006    1:09:49 AM  C:\Windows\System32\COMMAND.COM

I think that's probably the same one from WinME and also included with Win XP. But I don't think that is responsible for the 32 MB DPMI memory limit or weird console bugs or other issues.

> > (for MS, for freak's sake, since they invented DOS!).
>
> IBM invented DOS.

Actually, I should've said MS mostly developed DOS. DR-DOS was independent and brought unique stuff (LOADHIGH). PC DOS was eventually completely separate from MS-DOS (after 5.x?). And you know the rest probably much better than me!

P.S. Tim Paterson indeed wrote QDOS, which was basically a CP/M clone for the 8086 that MS bought and adapted for their own use (sublicensed to IBM).

> -I don't like the order how FAT32 partitions are assigned to drive letters
> (C: was hd0 1st partition, follewed by D: E: F: FAT32 parttitions and then
> other FAT16 partitions. Normally I had FAT32 partitions at end), I use
> MSDOS/FreeDOS order. But I don't know if it's configurable somewhere...

I dunno if you're aware, but you can try BTTR's DRVEXCH (though I can't promise it'll help ... be sure to read the docs first).

> > > IBM invented DOS.
> >
> > Tim Paterson invented DOS.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_Operating_System

What's the point?

---
Forum admin

> Just a quick look at the Vetusware site shows a lot of old (!) commercial
> apps as well as some (mostly outdated) freeware. In particular, though, I
> wonder why anybody would want the following instead of better
> alternatives:

Random notes:

> TASM (LZASM, FASM, NASM, OCTASM)
Agreed. Good TASM-compatible assemblers are available.

> ACROREAD (XPDF, DOSPDF)
Old Acrobat Reader defintitely useless. Installation crashes WinXP, doesn't reliably read PDFs less than 10+ years old... I would only add Ghostscript as another modern alternative - very nice program, once you get used to it.

> AUTOCAD (DESICAD?)
DESI not nearly as powerful as AutoCAD, which was a great prog under DOS - and ridiculously expensive. But nobody needs DOS AutoCAD anyway. Professionals (architects mostly) will need more modern graphical CAD programs, non-professionals will find it too much and too hard to learn.

> AZTEC C (OpenWatcom, Dev86DOS, Turbo C, DJGPP, CC386)
Was written for very weak machines, a waste of hardware now.

> BC++ (see "Aztec C" above)
Yes.

> BRIEF (VIM, VILE, JASSPA, TDE, FED, FTE)
Editors are an esthetic thing - old programmers hate to learn new ones. But since the old guys already have BRIEF, and newer editors are more powerful and more flexible, old BRIEF for free means nothing.

> MS F77 (GNU/DJGPP G77)
As to MS specifically - not one of the best Fortrans. GNU and OpenWatcom are better. There is a body of old Fortran code that will still compile under F77, but for new work go with gfortran

> FreeDOS B9RC3 (uh ... my updated mini distro? anyone??)
Sorry, no thanks.

> NORTON CMNDR (DOSZip, DC-SK)
Yes. Enhanced derivatives are free and available everywhere.

> Personal C (Desmet C)
Both, as per Aztec C, above.

> PKUNZIP (Info-Zip, p7zip)
Right - nobody needs PKZIP anymore.

> Zortech C (Digital Mars w/ HXRT or stubbed by WDOSX?)
Special case. DM is essentially Walter Bright's upgrade to his own Zortech product, and free besides. Easy decision.

> Granted, if any original copyright holders want to make this stuff free,
> be my guest! Otherwise, I'm sticking to freeware. (I'm sure Steve
> knows of a bunch of stuff I'm forgetting, too.)

What I really think, is that people who don't already have the old software would mostly be wasting their time in getting it and trying to use it. Most software from the 1980s, even a lot from the 1990s, is crap now. The truth is, people use old software out of habit, not because it's better than what is available now. Not because of money either - free software is at a high level now, higher than most shareware and a lot of commercial software from 5-10 years ago.

> > > > IBM invented DOS.
> > >
> > > Tim Paterson invented DOS.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_Operating_System
>
> What's the point?

IBM's 360 DOS was the first DOS. Logically enough - IBM invented the mag disk.
The rest is only scaling down to toy microcomputers.

> IBM's 360 DOS was the first DOS. Logically enough - IBM invented the mag
> disk.

But this forum is about DOS on x86 machines, so we (Rugxulo and me) were talking about MS-DOS clones. Or do you want to talk about Dissolved Organic Sulfur?

> The rest is only scaling down to toy microcomputers.

That's why we are here!

---
Forum admin

> I think that's probably the same one from WinME and also included with Win
> XP. But I don't think that is responsible for the 32 MB DPMI memory limit
> or weird console bugs or other issues.

Maybe not directly, but if another command.com can be run, then it can in turn run other needed utils, and experiments can be conducted. I'm depending on you - else I'd have to spend some actual money to get Vista (with or without a whole machine).

> Actually, I should've said MS mostly developed DOS. DR-DOS was independent
> and brought unique stuff (LOADHIGH). PC DOS was eventually completely
> separate from MS-DOS (after 5.x?). And you know the rest probably much
> better than me!

PC DOS was the original name of the DOS for the IBM PC, sold with the machines. MS-DOS later became the name of the variant that MS began to sell separately from machines.

DR-DOS was originally CP/M, enhanced for compatibility with DOS, and renamed to give customers a clue.

> P.S. Tim Paterson indeed wrote
> QDOS, which was basically a CP/M clone for the 8086 that MS bought and
> adapted for their own use (sublicensed to IBM).

That's one chapter of the story, yes.

> > IBM's 360 DOS was the first DOS. Logically enough - IBM invented the mag
> > disk.
>
> But this forum is about DOS on x86 machines, so we (Rugxulo and me) were
> talking about MS-DOS clones. Or do you want to talk about Dissolved
> Organic Sulfur?

Dissolved Organic Sulfur might be too far OT. Though it could be interesting.

> > The rest is only scaling down to toy microcomputers.
>
> That's why we are here!

Um, I noticed.

> > > (for MS, for freak's sake, since they invented DOS!).
> >
> > IBM invented DOS.
>
> Tim Paterson invented DOS.

Look at header of any EXE file and you find that first two chars are "MZ" - it means Mark Zbirowski - one of key authors of DOS.

---
DOS-u-akbar!

> need 386+ (V86 mode) as well as EMM386 (which includes multitasking guts,
> according to Udo, if I understood him correctly). Trying to use TASKMGR

This is true. All of the code of the taskmanager (No taskswitcher) is inside emm386. Taskmgr is only a user interface. Take a look at Matthias Pauls website...is quite old but very interesting.

> Hmmm, TriDOS: MASM src + multitasking + DPMI server, if only there was one
> or two people around here willing to set differences aside and take a look.
>

I have made a page at Club Dr-DOS Wiki...with source and a idea how to fix a big bug. But nobody has been interested.

> Maybe not directly, but if another command.com can be run, then it can in
> turn run other needed utils, and experiments can be conducted. I'm
> depending on you - else I'd have to spend some actual money to get Vista
> (with or without a whole machine).

As mentioned, you can run DOS programs in Vista 32-bit (e.g. Home Premium), but you cannot use more than 32 MB of total DPMI memory at any one time. The CMD prompt does not go full-screen, so some apps refuse to run (e.g. even UNZIP/DOS compiled by OpenWatcom/32-bit, strangely). There are indeed other minor anomalies re: cursor positioning, DOS API bugs, etc. And even MS's own Virtual PC 2007 won't install on Vista Home (Basic or Premium), but that AFAICT is "just business." SP1 is supposed to fix the 32 MB issue, but you'd think that'd be easy to fix and already put out via Windows Update (yet nope, nothing). Sad but true. Put simply, it's not a DOS-lover's favorite Windows (what is, Win98SE?). Even XP runs DOS stuff a lot better. So yeah, not sure if you're really wanting to upgrade, but unless you're willing to use a hypervisor/VM for DOS stuff, I'd advise against it. (Although Vista will probably eventually be ubiquitous like XP now is.)

> > Tim Paterson invented DOS.
>
> Look at header of any EXE file and you find that first two chars are "MZ"
> - it means Mark Zbirowski - one of key authors of DOS.

His name is Mark Zbikowski and EXE files were introduced in MS-DOS version 1.1 IIRC.

There's a nice interview with him: http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=193997

---
Forum admin

> I have made a page at Club Dr-DOS Wiki...with source and a idea how to fix
> a big bug. But nobody has been interested.

It would indeed be useful if a). it was stable and didn't mess up data (unconfirmed: ask sol), and b). DPMI programs were allowed to run. Otherwise, it's mostly just a toy (but still cool and better than I could do!).

> (what is, Win98SE?).

Windows 98 second edition - 98 including SP and hotfixes. Much stable and better than original 98. Currently I can run most modern features like USB 2.0, nvidia 7600GS PCIE drivers. There are continuing development of unofficial servicepack and unofficial USB driver by win98 community. It's not dead OS.

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

> Put simply, it's not a DOS-lover's favorite Windows

That's how it looks.

> (what is, Win98SE?)

The last real DOS-based Windows, bootable to plain DOS, so, yes.

> Even XP runs DOS stuff a lot better. So yeah, not sure if you're really
> wanting to upgrade, but unless you're willing to use a hypervisor/VM for DOS
> stuff, I'd advise against it. (Although Vista will probably eventually be
> ubiquitous like XP now is.)

Actually, I have never wanted to upgrade an OS. Vista looks to me like a worst case - nothing I really need, and everything I don't (bad DOS support, breaks even some good Win apps, hardware pig...). Unless and until there are attractive apps that run on Vista only, I'm standing still at XP (as I did for a real long time with Win95 and Win3 earlier).

> Aero (prettier than XP??) can be disabled (as will be if you replace the

The first thing I do when XP has installed is to switch desktop to old 95 style, no activeX, set normal start menu... Vista look much better but there's also Vista theme for XP.

> Chess Titans). Larger icons due to using .PNG now (??). DRM isn't an issue
> unless your cpu plays HD content (some laptops, e.g. Sony Vaio??, play HD

But it takes hdd space, memory, etc...

> There's also a new search menu feature that's much faster.

I search files through favorite filemanager (for windows i like Servant Salamander). I use explorer and windows search very rare (on other computers without another sw).

> for antivirus progs, etc. Oh yeah, and some new default games (at least
> with my Home Premium: Mahjongg Titans, Chess Titans, Purble Place, Inkball

I saw mines, prety cool :) but btw how great is the exe now? 2x 10x?

> IE7 and WMP11 are available

I use Mozilla and media player classic or mplayer so no profit for me. If possible I would complettly ripp off the IE but some apps don't install without it.

> beta is supposedly being tested now, but I dunno how much it will
> improve (beyond what daily updates already "fixed", I mean).

I think there's nothing such exciting which I can live without it on Vista and which don't work in XP. Now. But future apps versions may change it.

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

> alternatives:

also some random quotes

> SMARTDRV (UIDE, LBACACHE)

UIDE cache is joined with udma and once it doesn't work on my controler I cannot utilize even the cache. LBACACHE I use now but it's slower than Norton Speedrive (which cause me some problems on current HW so I switch to LBA cache)

> AUTOCAD (DESICAD?)

I thing nothing free dos sw can compare to good Autcad, Microstation, 3DStudio...

> BLOOD (Ken's Labyrinth)

Are you joking? My loved blood, oh no. :)

> QEMM (JEMM386)

QEMM with it's optimalization techniques can do the best free memory and as a bonus it has very usefull quickboot feature. Only disadvantage is limit to 256MB for v9.0 :(

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

I know these problems...

I changed from WinVista to Ubuntu+DOSEMU and am happy now. DOSEMU is as good or even better than the DOSbox of Win98... but real FreeDOS/Dr-DOS is much better

Hasta luego!
Flo

> It would indeed be useful if a). it was stable and didn't mess up data
> (unconfirmed: ask sol), and b). DPMI programs were allowed to run.
> Otherwise, it's mostly just a toy (but still cool and better than I could
> do!).

A DPMI-client is included but very buggy... I think it will be a good starting point if someone wants to develope a taskmanager.

Hasta luego!
Flo

> Not sure why you need to run DN and Quake (x 2!) at the same time.

Play with myself, haha :)

Just tried a lot mad things which it can still switch :)

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

> Windows 98 second edition - 98 including SP and hotfixes. Much stable and
> better than original 98. Currently I can run most modern features like USB
> 2.0, nvidia 7600GS PCIE drivers. There are continuing development of
> unofficial servicepack and unofficial USB driver by win98 community. It's
> not dead OS.

Yes, that's what I meant (although I never used Win98, only Win95 a long time ago, before 2000). Win ME messed up (real mode?) compatibility a little bit, and even that was considered the last DOS-based Windows. And yeah, Win95 didn't support USB. And Win98SE ("second edition") came out in 1999, so that's not very old in my eyes (newer than DR-DOS, at least!).

> Win95 didn't support USB.

95A didn't, but 95B & C had some USB support.

> time ago, before 2000). Win ME messed up (real mode?) compatibility a

I call WinMe "win fuckme" :)

> little bit, and even that was considered the last DOS-based Windows. And
> yeah, Win95 didn't support USB.

Win95 OSR2 bring support of USB and FAT32. U

> And Win98SE ("second edition") came out in
> 1999, so that's not very old in my eyes (newer than DR-DOS, at least!).

So 98SE is the best choice of win9x which are still supported by community :)

Also some 2k/xp apps was hacked to be run on 98se
(doom 3, google earth, divx 6, more...)

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