Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to index page
Thread view  Board view
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
23.11.2007, 17:39
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC (DOSX)

Post reply

Japheth, HDPMI16 won't work with EMM386.EXE from DR-DOS 7.03 because the latter remaps the master Programmable Interrupt Controller (PIC) from base Interrupt vector 08h to 50h. It says "HDPMI cannot run because the VCPI server has reprogrammed the PIC's" (or something similar).

What I'm wondering is why this is a problem for HDPMI16, since other DPMI servers can cope with this, and it won't upset properly written DPMI applications since there is a DPMI function (31h/0400h) that returns the base vector numbers of both the master and slave PIC's.
Japheth

Homepage

Germany (South),
23.11.2007, 19:15

@ jaybur
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> Japheth, HDPMI16 won't work with EMM386.EXE from DR-DOS 7.03 because the
> latter remaps the master Programmable Interrupt Controller (PIC) from base
> Interrupt vector 08h to 50h. It says "HDPMI cannot run because the VCPI
> server has reprogrammed the PIC's" (or something similar).
>
> What I'm wondering is why this is a problem for HDPMI16, since other DPMI
> servers can cope with this, and it won't upset properly written DPMI
> applications since there is a DPMI function (31h/0400h) that returns the
> base vector numbers of both the master and slave PIC's.
There are things hard-coded for bases 08h/70h. This could be changed to be more flexible of course, but it is some work, and this is of very low priority for me. If you can convince me that DR Emm386 is worth to be supported ... :-D

---
MS-DOS forever!
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
23.11.2007, 19:36

@ Japheth
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> If you can convince me that DR Emm386 is worth to be
> supported ... :-D
Well AIUI, it is the only one that will allow DR-DOS to multi-task, since the task-switcher is in DR Emm386 itself.

Does anyone know of any other VCPI servers that remap the PIC's?
Japheth

Homepage

Germany (South),
24.11.2007, 10:34

@ jaybur
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> > If you can convince me that DR Emm386 is worth to be
> > supported ... :-D
>
> Well AIUI, it is the only one that will allow DR-DOS to multi-task, since
> the task-switcher is in DR Emm386 itself.
Does the task-switcher work for other DOS versions (FreeDOS, MS-DOS) as well? Because on my side there is no interest anymore to support (E)DR-DOS.

> Does anyone know of any other VCPI servers that remap the PIC's?
AFAIK it's the only one.

---
MS-DOS forever!
RayeR

Homepage

CZ,
24.11.2007, 14:55

@ Japheth
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> Does the task-switcher work for other DOS versions (FreeDOS, MS-DOS) as
> well? Because on my side there is no interest anymore to support
> (E)DR-DOS.
BTW how much work would be implement similar task switcher to jemm? Did you think about it or it's not interesting for you?

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

Homepage

Germany (South),
25.11.2007, 09:50

@ RayeR
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> > Does the task-switcher work for other DOS versions (FreeDOS, MS-DOS) as
> > well? Because on my side there is no interest anymore to support
> > (E)DR-DOS.
>
> BTW how much work would be implement similar task switcher to jemm? Did
> you think about it or it's not interesting for you?
If there is no support from the OS - and AFAIK FreeDOS has no support for such things - it is difficult to implement and most likely requires "virtual device drivers", at least for HD access.

It might be more promising to allow to run several QEMU sessions (=DPMI clients) concurrently in ONE DOS task. What's needed then is a DOS KQEMU module for better speed.

---
MS-DOS forever!
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
24.11.2007, 18:29

@ Japheth
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> Does the task-switcher work for other DOS versions (FreeDOS, MS-DOS) as
> well? Because on my side there is no interest anymore to support (E)DR-DOS.
I don't think so, no.

While I think Udo is doing some very stupid things with EDR-DOS, without it we are left with what - MS-DOS 7.x and FreeDos? Both of which are now unsupported. :crying:
rr

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
24.11.2007, 19:41

@ jaybur
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> While I think Udo is doing some very stupid things with EDR-DOS, without
> it we are left with what - MS-DOS 7.x and FreeDos? Both of which are now
> unsupported. :crying:
Why do you think FreeDOS is no longer supported?

---
Forum admin
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
24.11.2007, 21:38

@ rr
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> Why do you think FreeDOS is no longer supported?
I posted a couple of bug reports about a year ago, was in conversation with a couple of the FreeDOS maintainers (who agreed with my reports), but never got any sign that anything was actually being done about them.
rr

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
24.11.2007, 22:08

@ jaybur
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> I posted a couple of bug reports about a year ago, was in conversation
> with a couple of the FreeDOS maintainers (who agreed with my reports), but
> never got any sign that anything was actually being done about them.
I only found Bug 1953 - 21h/29h returns 0 (valid) for all drive root names up to LASTDRIVE.

---
Forum admin
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
25.11.2007, 00:17

@ rr
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> I only found
> Bug
> 1953 - 21h/29h returns 0 (valid) for all drive root names up to
> LASTDRIVE.

Another less serious one that I reported to Eric was that the decimal place and thousands separator characters are wrong for the UK locale - they should be full-stop and comma respectively. FreeDOS has them the other way around.
Rugxulo

Homepage

Usono,
26.11.2007, 19:46

@ jaybur
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> I posted a couple of bug reports about a year ago, was in conversation
> with a couple of the FreeDOS maintainers (who agreed with my reports), but
> never got any sign that anything was actually being done about them.
The latest kernel is Sep. 15, 2007 and fixes a TRUENAME/SUBST bug. Try it and see if your reported bug is fixed. If not, report it again. (BTW, Blair is working on an updated FreeDOS 1.1 release, TBA).
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
27.11.2007, 01:06

@ Rugxulo
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> The latest kernel is Sep. 15,
> 2007 and fixes a TRUENAME/SUBST bug. Try it and see if your reported
> bug is fixed. If not, report it again. (BTW, Blair is working on an updated
> FreeDOS 1.1 release, TBA).
Thanks for the link, and it's good to see that FreeDOS is still being developed. I will try the new kernel this week, but I don't have FreeDOS installed on any machine ATM.
lucho

27.11.2007, 07:27

@ Rugxulo
 

Bugzilla

Post reply

> Try it and see if your reported bug is fixed. If not, report it again.
The bugs are reported via a Bugzilla system and once a bug record is filled there, the same bug can't be reported again without duplication, which is to be avoided by all means.
Rugxulo

Homepage

Usono,
27.11.2007, 07:43

@ lucho
 

Bugzilla

Post reply

> The bugs are reported via a
> Bugzilla system and
> once a bug record is filled there, the same bug can't be reported again
> without duplication, which is to be avoided by all means.
I meant draw the attention of somebody with SVN commit privileges (i.e. "[gently] nag the developers"). :-)
lucho

27.11.2007, 07:51

@ Rugxulo
 

No FreeDOS kernel developers left

Post reply

> I meant draw the attention of somebody with SVN commit privileges (i.e. "[gently] nag the developers"). :-)
See FreeDOS kernel
Rugxulo

Homepage

Usono,
26.11.2007, 19:54

@ jaybur
 

FreeDOS kernel (TODO before 2038 is released)

Post reply

> I posted a couple of bug reports about a year ago, was in conversation
> with a couple of the FreeDOS maintainers (who agreed with my reports), but
> never got any sign that anything was actually being done about them.
Here's what Eric wants done before 2038 is released: 2038 TODO
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
27.11.2007, 01:07

@ Rugxulo
 

FreeDOS kernel (TODO before 2038 is released)

Post reply

> Here's what Eric wants done before 2038 is released:
> 2038
> TODO

At least Eric wants the most serious of the two bugs fixed: http://www.freedos.org/bugzilla/cgi-bin/show_bug.cgi?id=1953 but there hasn't been any activity on it according to bugzilla.:-(
lucho

27.11.2007, 07:38

@ jaybur
 

FreeDOS kernel

Post reply

> but there hasn't been any activity on it according to bugzilla.:-(
Because there are no longer any active FreeDOS kernel developers, nor even a permanent maintainer.
lucho

24.11.2007, 19:47

@ jaybur
 

EDR-DOS, MS-DOS, FreeDOS, PC-DOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS

Post reply

> While I think Udo is doing some very stupid things with EDR-DOS
I don't think so, but we can continue the discussion about this on his forum.

> without it we are left with what - MS-DOS 7.x and FreeDos? Both of which are
> now unsupported.:crying:
There are also PC-DOS (2005), PTS-DOS (2006) and ROM-DOS (2007), all with LBA/FAT32 support.
They're all free (as beer) but PTS-DOS which costs just $20.
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
24.11.2007, 21:08

@ lucho
 

EDR-DOS, MS-DOS, FreeDOS, PC-DOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS

Post reply

> I don't think so, but we can continue the discussion about this on his [Udo's]
> forum.
I and others already have, but he won't listen to anyone, so there's not much point.

> There are also PC-DOS (2005), PTS-DOS (2006) and ROM-DOS (2007), all with
> LBA/FAT32 support.
> They're all free (as beer) but PTS-DOS which costs just $20.
I hope you're right, and that they are still being supported and improved, but I haven't seen any changes to ROM-DOS for example for a couple of years or so. What have they added/improved lately?
Japheth

Homepage

Germany (South),
25.11.2007, 08:46
(edited by Japheth, 25.11.2007, 11:25)

@ jaybur
 

Discussion of EDR-DOS issues

Post reply

> > I don't think so, but we can continue the discussion about this on his
> [Udo's] forum.
>
> I and others already have, but he won't listen to anyone, so there's not much point.
Friends, don't hesitate to discuss such issues here in this forum. After all, this is a DOS discussion board. OTOH, the "Evil DoctoR" board is not intended for discussion, it is a "little kingdom", with a king declaring as spam all posts he doesn't agree with, and such "spam" is deleted instantly.

Even better, the BTTR forum is silently and eagerly read by many people - HAY, Chay Are! - and we can be assured that the "king" is among those people as well. So nothing is lost.

---
MS-DOS forever!
lucho

25.11.2007, 20:09

@ Japheth
 

Discussion of EDR-DOS issues

Post reply

I disagree with every word. You prefer BTTR forum because you're banned from the EDR-DOS forum (and the only one banned as far as I know), but the EDR-DOS forum is the most natural place for EDR-DOS questions.
Japheth

Homepage

Germany (South),
26.11.2007, 01:48

@ lucho
 

Discussion of EDR-DOS issues

Post reply

> I disagree with every word.

Thanks! I'd have been worried otherwise.

---
MS-DOS forever!
lucho

25.11.2007, 19:58

@ jaybur
 

ROM-DOS

Post reply

> I hope you're right, and that they are still being supported and improved,
> but I haven't seen any changes to ROM-DOS for example for a couple of years
> or so.
Its latest revision is 4.20.1588, dated 12 April 2006.

> What have they added/improved lately?
Lately they don't publish a list of changes, unlike what they did in the past century, so I don't know.
rr

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
24.11.2007, 21:54

@ lucho
 

EDR-DOS, MS-DOS, FreeDOS, PC-DOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS

Post reply

> There are also PC-DOS (2005), PTS-DOS (2006) and ROM-DOS (2007), all with
> LBA/FAT32 support.
But are these still really supported by their vendors? I mean, you report a bug and get a fixed version.

> They're all free (as beer) but PTS-DOS which costs just $20.
These are only free for personal use.

---
Forum admin
lucho

25.11.2007, 20:03

@ rr
 

EDR-DOS, MS-DOS, FreeDOS, PC-DOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS

Post reply

> > There are also PC-DOS (2005), PTS-DOS (2006) and ROM-DOS (2007), all
> with LBA/FAT32 support.
>
> But are these still really supported by their vendors? I mean, you report
> a bug and get a fixed version.
Neither of them have ever been supported in this way, as far as I know.

> > They're all free (as beer) but PTS-DOS which costs just $20.
>
> These are only free for personal use.
Yes, and that means more than 99% of the users, so we could see that they're at least 99% free.
Steve

Homepage E-mail

US,
25.11.2007, 07:43

@ lucho
 

EDR-DOS, MS-DOS, FreeDOS, PC-DOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS

Post reply

> There are also PC-DOS (2005), PTS-DOS (2006) and ROM-DOS (2007), all with
> LBA/FAT32 support.
> They're all free (as beer) but PTS-DOS which costs just $20.
Parts of PC-DOS are used with IBM installers. There is no user support or complete set of files, it's not sold or distributed by itself...

Latest ROM-DOS is from 04-2006.

Latest PTS-DOS 32 is from 04-2004.
lucho

25.11.2007, 19:53

@ Steve
 

PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS

Post reply

> Latest ROM-DOS is from 04-2006.
Right. It still stays at revision 4.20.1588, dated 12 April 2006. I was sure that they had updated it since, because they've updated it each year so far. Alas!

> Latest PTS-DOS 32 is from 04-2004.
Wrong. When I downloaded it 4 months ago, it was build 151, dated 3 January 2006 (both the English and Russian versions).
flox

Homepage

25.11.2007, 21:41

@ lucho
 

PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS

Post reply

> Wrong. When I downloaded it 4 months ago, it was build 151, dated 3
> January 2006 (both the English and Russian versions).
I downloaded it from the official site now:

build 141

Date 19 May 2004
flox

Homepage

26.11.2007, 09:46

@ flox
 

PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS

Post reply

> Date 19 May 2004
Maybe because DrDOS INC had been founded in 2004?? :-)
lucho

26.11.2007, 11:41

@ flox
 

PTS-DOS

Post reply

> > Wrong. When I downloaded it 4 months ago, it was build 151, dated 3
> > January 2006 (both the English and Russian versions).
>
> I downloaded it from the official site now:
>
> build 141
> Date 19 May 2004
From which official site you downloaded it? When I just downloaded it from http://www.phystechsoft.ru/ptsdos/index/download/, I got again:

build 151
date: 2 January 2006

This is so for both the Russian and the English version, but the README says the build and date only for the Russian version. For the English version, it's just too short. Nevertheless, its build is also 151, dated 3 January 2006.
flox

Homepage

26.11.2007, 12:04

@ lucho
 

PTS-DOS

Post reply

I downloaded it from the English part of the homepage :-)
lucho

26.11.2007, 13:08

@ flox
 

PTS-DOS

Post reply

> I downloaded it from the English part of the homepage :-)
Well, it must be "to mislead the enemy" then, as we used to joke once upon a time ;-)
Steve

Homepage E-mail

US,
26.11.2007, 13:16

@ lucho
 

PTS-DOS

Post reply

> Well, it must be "to mislead the enemy" then, as we used to joke once upon
> a time ;-)
In this case, they are misleading potential cash customers, who will not know about upgrades.
lucho

26.11.2007, 13:37

@ Steve
 

PTS-DOS

Post reply

> In this case, they are misleading potential cash customers, who will not
> know about upgrades.
I was joking, of course. I think that for both Datalight and PhysTechSoft, their DOSes have become of least concern, or as we say, "the last hole of the kaval" :-(
Rugxulo

Homepage

Usono,
26.11.2007, 20:34

@ lucho
 

PTS-DOS

Post reply

> This is so for both the Russian and the English version, but the README
> says the build and date only for the Russian version. For the English
> version, it's just too short. Nevertheless, its build is also 151, dated 3
> January 2006.
I've downloaded PTS-DOS before but never actually tried it (go figure, and I like boot floppies, heh). Guess I need to "get to it."

Of course, I find it odd that PTSDS32E.ZIP is actually a .RAR archive. :-P
Steve

Homepage E-mail

US,
26.11.2007, 13:11

@ lucho
 

PTS-DOS

Post reply

> > Latest PTS-DOS 32 is from 04-2004.
>
> Wrong. When I downloaded it 4 months ago, it was build 151, dated 3
> January 2006 (both the English and Russian versions).
Oops - I typed the month wrong:
http://www.phystechsoft.com/ptsdos/news.php
"5.01.2004 Phystechsoft announces the release of new operational system PTS-DOS 32"
Rugxulo

Homepage

Usono,
26.11.2007, 19:49

@ jaybur
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> Japheth, HDPMI16 won't work with EMM386.EXE from DR-DOS 7.03 because the
> latter remaps the master Programmable Interrupt Controller (PIC) from base
> Interrupt vector 08h to 50h. It says "HDPMI cannot run because the VCPI
> server has reprogrammed the PIC's" (or something similar).
>
> What I'm wondering is why this is a problem for HDPMI16, since other DPMI
> servers can cope with this, and it won't upset properly written DPMI
> applications since there is a DPMI function (31h/0400h) that returns the
> base vector numbers of both the master and slave PIC's.
I have no clue what the hell the PIC is, how to reprogram it, why, etc. So take this with a grain of salt or two: :-P :-D

DR-DOS' EMM386 allows you to specific "PIC=ON" or "PIC=OFF" on the cmdline (e.g. for better DOS/4GW compatibility??).

P.S. I don't multitask on DR-DOS much at all, but I think you can "DPMI OFF" within one of the tasks and use something else (while still being able to multitask). I'd have to try it again to be sure, but that seems right at least.

That's all I know. :-P
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
27.11.2007, 01:46

@ Rugxulo
 

HDPMI16 - reprogrammed PIC

Post reply

> DR-DOS' EMM386 allows you to specific "PIC=ON" or "PIC=OFF" on the cmdline
> (e.g. for better DOS/4GW compatibility??).
Rugxulo, you're a genius! :-)

Doing a:

C:/>EMM386 PIC=ON

allows HDPMI16 (and HDPMI32 as well I should think) to work with DR's EMM386.EXE!

> P.S. I don't multitask on DR-DOS much at all, but I think you can "DPMI
> OFF" within one of the tasks and use something else (while still being
> able to multitask).
EMM386's DPMI server is pants, so should always be switched off:

CONFIG.SYS
...
C:\DRDOS\EMM386.EXE DPMI=OFF ...etc

> That's all I know. :-P
That was enough. :-)
Rugxulo

Homepage

Usono,
27.11.2007, 07:39

@ jaybur
 

DR-DOS EMM386 vs. JEMMEX

Post reply

> Rugxulo, you're a genius! :-)
I think it'll be hard to find supporters for that idea. :-D

> EMM386's DPMI server is pants, so should always be switched off:
>
> CONFIG.SYS
> ...
> C:\DRDOS\EMM386.EXE DPMI=OFF ...etc
IIRC, you can't enable their DPMI via cmdline if you do that. Hence (until switching to JEMMEX full-time) I usually just ran "dpmi off" in AUTOEXEC.BAT so that I could adjust as needed. Some programs won't work w/ "DPMI off", though (you may have issues w/ NWCACHE or DELWATCH or STACKER or whatever). In fact, dare I say it, but DR-DOS' EMM386.EXE is buggy. Still, you do need it (but rarely these days, thanks to Tom/Devore/Japheth's FreeDOS work).

If you don't believe me, these programs seem to have issues w/ DR-DOS' EMM386:

* TDEP (needs "DPMI on" else keys won't work correctly)
* Mpxplay (hangs w/ EMM386 loaded and DPMI disabled)
* 7ZA + HXRT (can't remember, maybe PIC=ON works, maybe not)
* e3 / Win9x + HXRT -- (pretty sure this needs PIC=ON)
* CC386 (crashes/reboots when NWCACHE loaded and enabled only w/ EMM386 and built-in DPMI ?)
* SEE ("OUT OF MEMORY" but works fine under JEMMEX)

N.B. Like I said before, it's hard to test a billion different setups (EMM386 NOEMS, DPMI=OFF, etc.) even if my CONFIG.SYS has a few. So, take this info with a grain of salt. So, if it works for you, fine. But some setups of mine apparently have issues. :-P
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
27.11.2007, 16:07

@ Rugxulo
 

DR-DOS EMM386 vs. JEMMEX

Post reply

> In fact, dare I say it, but DR-DOS' EMM386.EXE is buggy.
I've come to the same conclusion (again), despite someone else (sorry, forgot who) saying that there aren't any [serious] problems with the 7.03 version of DR EMM386. :-(

> Still, you do need it (but rarely these days, thanks to
> Tom/Devore/Japheth's FreeDOS work).
Yes, JEMMEX does seem to be the best of the lot. It's a pity that DR-EMM386 is so bad though because it negates one of [E]DR-DOS's primary features of being able to multi-task (without any 3rd party add-ons).
lucho

27.11.2007, 07:48

@ Rugxulo
 

PIC

Post reply

> I have no clue what the hell the PIC is
PIC means "Priority Interrupt Controller" - a chip by Intel named 8259 in the PC/XT and 8259-2 in the PC/AT. Later they integrated it into the south bridge of the chipset, and added an APIC - "Advanced Priority Interrupt Controller" which allows many more interrupt request lines (224) than that of the original PC/XT (8) and PC/AT (15).
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
27.11.2007, 15:53

@ lucho
 

PIC

Post reply

> PIC means "Priority Interrupt Controller"
actually it means "Programmable Interrupt Controller" - see your own link and also: 8269A techsheet
lucho

27.11.2007, 20:14

@ jaybur
 

PIC

Post reply

> > PIC means "Priority Interrupt Controller"
>
> actually it means "Programmable Interrupt Controller"
Thanks for the correction!

> see your own link and also: 8269A techsheet
You mean 8259A :-)

I've read my xerox copy of that datasheet a decade ago but obviously not the title ;-)
jaybur

Homepage E-mail

UK,
27.11.2007, 23:24

@ lucho
 

PIC

Post reply

> You mean 8259A :-)
Yes. :-)
Back to index page
Thread view  Board view
22753 Postings in 2119 Threads, 402 registered users (1 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum