Interview: Learn About the FreeDOS Project 166
This week's interview guest is Jim Hall, founder of the FreeDOS project. Jim isn't rich or famous, just an old-fashioned open source contributor who helped start a humble but useful project back in 1994 and still works on it as much as he can. FreeDOS is the DOS behind DOSEmu, so if you've used any DOS programs (like games) under Linux, you've benefited from Jim's work. One question per post, please. Moderators do the question selection, with editorial help only if there are duplicate or overlapping questions. Cutoff for questions and moderation is Tuesday noon, U.S. EST. Jim's answers will appear Friday.
The future of emulation. (Score:3)
So where are we going - and how far will it take FreeDOS?
Question for ROB (Score:2)
---
This comment powered by Mozilla!
Does FreeDOS have a Killer App? (Score:2)
Well... (Score:3)
Could you rewrite a version of DOS that'll work with Windows 9x and have the correct slashes ( / ) in the filesystem instead of those bass-ackward ones ( \ ) that are always in the wrong spot to type quickly?
- 8Complex
Lifespan of DOS (Score:5)
dosemu doesn't *need* freedos ... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
But I suspect the problem here is the huge number of DOS command line programs that use '/' the way Unix uses '-'.
Question about development and direction. (Score:4)
Will development increase in capacity, and have you met your goals? I have also read your documentation and you implied that a 32 bit extension to the dos package was at some future time going to be implimented at some future date; you also said that if people didn't like what you had they could move to linux. My related question is when will you be able to impliment these features (32 bit) to your dos project.
Future Emulation? (Score:1)
16bit Windows emulation is available (not perfect but, available) using WINE.
What, if anything, can you shed on development of Win32 emulation? Will we someday be able to run W95/98 apps in emulation or, are we consigned to pressuring developers to support cross platform?
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
Best thing about DOS (Score:5)
Whilst we all loathed DOS when it was around, there was no debating that it was danged fast for some things, and its complete lack of abstraction was fun for games programmers and the like who got to cut through to the hardware when it suited them (and when it didn't!). Do you miss this rawness and freedom in more protective environments like Unix and Win32?
Project suitable for a moving target? (Score:5)
Here's a question... (Score:3)
Embedded? (Score:1)
How close is 1.0? (Score:5)
What do you feel are the remaining steps that must be taken to move from beta to the first non-beta version? No, I am NOT asking time to that release, that is always 'longer than desired.' And thank you for your time.
(1) EXT2 under DOS (2) Boot DOS from second drive (Score:1)
(1) "mount" an ext2 device as a drive.
(2) Boot Free DOS from somewhere besides the first partition on the first drive. MS WinDOS 98 is already hda1, because they never intend to fix that bug. So to run Freedos without floppies, it has to be able to boot from somewhere else.
And one other question
(3) Unix shell - What's the best command.com replacement that:
Has built in unix commands(ls,rm) instead of those dos things(dir,...)
Lets me use / for path separators and - for switches.
Thanks.
Re:Well... (Score:1)
DOS Based Pseudo Embedded Systems (Score:5)
Has Free DOS made any progress in these types of markets? Are people using Free DOS to replace MS-DOS in these pseudo embedded systems?
Re:I have a question. (Score:1)
Quite apart from the number of older games that use dos (doom, xcom-apocalypse & master of orion, to name but 3), it is very much in evidence as an embedded operating system.
Before you start screaming about embedded linux shut up and listen. A lot of machines use 16 bit (and even 8 bit) x86 clones which require a *lightweight* operating system & development environment.
One example that springs immediately to mind is portable data collection terminals - I spent some time in a previous job programming handheld barcode scanners. Environment? MS C 1.5 (or early borland) compiling to 80186 code running on DRDOS.
I wont advertise but this ancient, obsolete and, above all *usefull* equipment happens to be the best selling data collection system around.
One thing DOS gives is a system with a miniscule overhead. Despite being ancient, ugly and generally less than sexy it isnt going anywhere.
D
Re:lots of dos software available (Score:1)
have Windows as the primary OS for about 5 years. And the DOS development
isn't dead yet, but the commercial software vendors have forgotten DOS.
For example some shops (at least here in the Netherlands) still use DOS
software for accounting, etc.
Re:Future Emulation? (Score:2)
Question for freedos guy (Score:4)
dos kernel? (Score:1)
Windows 9x does not run on a dos Kernel, the main system controler is vmm32.vxd, I think and it is not based on anyway on Legacy dos code. NT has its own Kernel as well. Just being DOS compatable does not make an operating system a version of DOS. Infact Linux is probably more DOS compatable (with DOSemu) then NT.
Saying that windows95/98 runs on DOS is ether pure FUD or pure ignorance
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
FreeDOS and Redirection (Score:4)
We had to deploy the system with MS-DOS 6.22 (in other words we could not deply the system using Free DOS) because FAQ 6.1 of the DOSEMU FAQ [dosemu.org] says "First make sure you aren't using DosC (the FreeDos kernel), because unfortunately this can't yet cope with the redirector stuff. " (I know it doesn't work - I tried anyway
Anyway, my question is, when will FreeDOS work with redirection?
8-bit x86? (Score:1)
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Reverse Engineering (Score:5)
How do you feel about this, and what advantages do you feel society has a whole has received from the fruits of your reverse engineered labors? Similarly, what harms would we have as a society if you could never have rewritten DOS?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
How do you feel about Caldera? (Score:5)
Internals Question (Score:5)
What is FreeDOS' take on such quirks? In other words, where the system call specification is more general than what was actually implemented, are you referring back to the specification or what Microsoft actually coded?
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Re:dos kernel? (Score:1)
It did work (Score:1)
I tried it once for a laugh and it worked. I just typed c:/emu/snes or something.
I suppose that isn't really a DOS question though, sorry for wandering off topic
Re:dosemu doesn't *need* freedos ... (Score:2)
The one time I wish I had freedos was when I was installing Linux on an older Pentium machine. I had wanted to use nothing but open source tools to get it going, but the CD-ROM was not bootable. I had to boot the thing on something to get the drive partitioned.
I personally don't have much use for DOS emulation on my Linux box. Perhaps if I didn't have the old Windows thing for games... But I am somewhat interested in a DOS type thing for embedded systems, especially if it could be extended beyond what DOS itself does.
Re:I have a question. (Score:1)
The thing with embedded Linux vs. DOS is that (it seems to me) there are many things that you just don't need in many embedded applications. A small, dedicated device usually doesn't need multiple users, security, or multitasking. Those things just become overhead. I worked for years on a cash register application on hardware with essentially no OS, at it was fine for the task at hand.
Re:FreeDOS and Redirection (Network??) (Score:1)
that's why MS used \ (Score:1)
copy *.*
Would be a problem because
This is also a lose lose because the \ key is one of those keys that moves around on international keyboards and their key-maps. It pays to keep in mind that you can get to it using alt-092.
Win95:DOS::Linux:Lilo (Score:1)
As for not being based on legacy code, I have a hard time believing that MS would do a clean rewrite of all the DOS bits that were included into win95. They already had a functional command.com, why rewrite it instead of modifying the existing code?
Installation... (Score:2)
Would it be possible at some point to install FreeDOS without using floppies? Or more precisely, would it be possible to install FreeDOS using an El Torito CD-ROM or a ZIP disc? I've got a Linux-only box where I simply refuse to put a floppy disk drive (IMO the floppy is dead), but I have a little problem: I can't flash the BIOS (neither the motherboard nor the graphics card BIOS) from Linux (there was a project to do that, but it got assassinated). Since I don't want to install Windows (and pay US$120) to flash a BIOS, my next option is to use DOS. MS-DOS is not an option (it's hard to find someone who has it, and the installation media is floppy disks, so it's back to square one). FreeDOS seems like an option, except that I haven't been able to install it using neither a CD-ROM nor a ZIP disc (which is the only removable media my box has)
So, I think there must be hundreds of similar uses for FreeDOS, and I was wondering if it's planned to take it just a bit further than its predecessor. Bring DOS into this millenium, so to speak.
NETWORKED FREEDOS, I need (Score:3)
Please comment on what effort(s) you see as needed to NFS network a FreeDOS machine. (I'd be happy to give whatever help I can to get this done.)
BTW- I am doing this with M$DOS and XFS, but AFAIK there is NO WAY to network FreeDOS and get a 'drive letter' which connects to a networked machine or to send LPT1: stuff to a remote printer.
FreeDOS competitors (Score:1)
:-)
Re:FreeDOS and Redirection (Score:1)
Re:(1) EXT2 under DOS (2) Boot DOS from second dri (Score:1)
other=/dev/hdc1
label=msdos
table=/dev/hdc
map-drive=0x80
to=0x81
map-drive=0x81
to=0x80
this swaps hda+hdc from windows' perspective, so it thinks it's on hda1, when it's on hdc1.
Q. Hardest aspect of reverse engineering Dos ? (Score:1)
Re:Lifespan of DOS (Score:1)
DOS is dead, as well it should be. The concept of a single-user, single-tasking, unprotected memory space OS should have been dead and buried a long, long time ago. The scheduler for DOS is laughable at best, and please don't even mention threading. DOS was never designed to go anywhere but a single PC, unattatched to any network. That's a huge issue today when even your microwave oven [emarketer.com] has a Net connection. We are becoming a wired society, and the operating systems we use should reflect that.
I guess I just take issue with your assertion that only the "latest and greatest" is worth anything. If you'll recall, the seemingly favorite platform of the majority of Slashdot has it's origins over thirty years ago. [erau.edu] Just because something is old, doesn't mean it isn't worth anything. Look at the technical merits of DOS (or anything else, for that matter) before viewing its usefulness in the future.
Re:dos kernel? (Score:1)
Now, here's where I have to differ with you. Since you've never dug into the internals of Win9x (or, at least, this piece of the internals), I'm going to give you step by step directions on how to see that Win9x is still just a shell over the top of DOS, just like Win3.1.
- attrib -r -h -s c:\msdos.sys
- edit msdos.sys with your favorite text only editor
- Change the line which reads "BootGUI=1" to read "BootGUI=0"
- Save the file
- attrib +r +h +s c:\msdos.sys
- Reboot your PC
- Wait until you get your familiar old DOS prompt back.
- Type in "WIN", and press
As you can see, it's not very complicated. Win9x is nothing but a DOS shell, just like Win3.1. The only important difference is that the new version of DOS (version 7.0 as of Win95) automatically loads the shell, whereas with Win3.1 it required extra action to make sure it was loaded either in the form of the install program appending to autoexec.bat, the user doing so, or the user typing "win" every time he wanted to get into windows).Win9x is only the newest version of DOS. WinNT is not, and doesn't use a DOS kernel. Win9x has a DOS kernel.
Re:dos kernel? (Score:2)
Windows "milennium" claims to do away with it, but I think they just tuned io.sys a bit more to not allow a command.com any more. Otherwise, Windows 95 (all revs) and Windows 98 (all revs) would work just fine on any recent DOS kernel (FreeDOS, PCDOS, etc) that supported whatever features the
---
Re:dos kernel? (Score:1)
The posters here are only partially correct. Win9x boots from DOS and (natively) uses one or two DOS functions (for setting/reading the system clock, for example). You can also use DOS drivers under Windows 9x, for things like networking or SCSI, and it works.
However as soon as Win.com throws the machine into 32-bit mode, 99% of the OS functions (depending on how many DOS drivers are loaded) are handled by the Win9x kernel. At this point a copy of DOS is kept in memory and used to fork a "DOS Window". So you are correct that Windows9x does not run on a DOS kernel, but incorrect to say that does not contain real old fashion MS-DOS.
(Windows NT emulates DOS in a simlar way to Linux. I wouldn't be shocked if the implementation was better on Linux.)
--
What about DR Dos? (Score:1)
What's theirs towars FreeDOS?
--
Building DOS apps out of ANSI-C UNIX Console Apps (Score:2)
Some of us developed Open-Source UNIX console apps that are strict ANSI-C. Without leaving the comfort of our UNIX machines, we can use dos-gcc to make .exe files to distribute along with our tar.gz's and rpm's.
My question to you is, how do you get the rest of the "culture" right for the DOS distro, if you're unwilling to immerse yourself in DOS by using it? I'm basically talking about doing all the stuff that "rpm -i" does automatically on a Linux box, along with issues like portable uses of the ANSI system() and getenv() to do things like find a local C compiler and execute it from your C program. Is there a HOW-TO or FAQ about making your UNIX console program fit (as opposed to work) in a DOS world? Thanks in advance!
P.S. To put the question in perspective, the app I actually maintain is a program that generates C files, thus the compilation issue.
Filesystem support (Score:3)
Clean Room Reversing (Score:2)
Re:Lifespan of DOS (Score:1)
(BTW: I suppose you could say that the DOS schedular is laughable, in that it has none... I used to work with a DOS add-on scheduler, which is a tale in itself. (Genre:horror))
Personally, I do see a future for DOS in the embedded world. But I see fewer reasons to bother with it on the desktop.
Re:Linux for windows. (Score:1)
\ on our keyboards (Score:1)
Even the letters from the alfabet are not always in the same place like the letters W, Z and Y, that's why some keyboards are called QWERTY, while others belong to the QWERTZ or the QZERTY family...
ms
Re:You're ignorant... (Score:1)
At the root prompt type "shutdown -h now". When all the deamons have been killed, and the kernel prints out it's "Safe to powerdown" message, type 'mode co 80'. See that DOS prompt there? No, I didn't think so.
So, either 1 of 2 things are happening. One, Windows is running over the same old DOS kernel which isn't halted when the graphical shell was closed down, just like you'd see with Windows 3.11, *or* Microsoft wrote Windows 95 to boot up the DOS kernel after they halted the "Windows" kernel just to display the "It's safe to shutdown" screen. Somehow, I'm betting on the first theory to be more correct.
-BrentRe:Question for ROB (Score:2)
- Robin
Re:Question for ROB (Score:1)
a) You read comments
b) You care to respond
c) You are continuing to follow up with VA Linux
d) You feel bad about not posting the followup story
Second, maybe you could let the
---
This comment powered by Mozilla!
Re:(1) EXT2 under DOS (2) Boot DOS from second dri (Score:1)
Don't hold your breath for this!
>(3) Unix shell - What's the best command.com >replacement that:
> Has built in unix commands(ls,rm) instead of >those dos things(dir,...)
> Lets me use / for path separators and - for >switches.
Have you tried bash from cygwin32?
Heck yeah it has! (Score:1)
I vaguely recall the Fred Eady?? from Circuit Cellar Ink [circuitcellar.com] running some articles on freedos in embedded PCs.
dv
Re:NETWORKED FREEDOS, I need (Score:1)
Is there any kind of HOW TO available?
Didn't want to sound like a smartass, but . . . (Score:2)
Recently I had a problem. I had an IBM Thinkpad 500 (486slc2-50, 12 megs ram, 540 meg hd) that had a few bad sectors on the hard disk.
I didn't have any Linux floppies with mkdosfs, and MS-DOS format was bailing when it hit them.
Too cheap to buy a new hard drive, and with lots of time on my hands (down with the flu), I decided that this was unacceptable, and that there must be some way to format around them.
Obviously, the first option is to try one of the free (or free-ish) DOSes.
I downloaded both FreeDOS and DR-DOS, made floppies.
Now, what was disappointing was that the TP500, an admittedly weak notebook, can run MS-DOS, PC-DOS (obviously, shipped with it), any version of OS/2, Win95, Win98 (slowly), and Linux without any problems (other than crappy APM support in Win32) - both FreeDOS and DR-DOS completely refused to boot on it.
I ended up digging out my old OS/2 Warp 4 maintenence disks and using OS/2's format -l2, which worked fine.
I later read that FreeDOS will choke and die on hard drives larger than 528 megs. Also possibly (or maybe quite likely) corrupt the partition table as it dies.
And that this has been a known problem for quite some time now.
I don't think DR-DOS suffers from the same problem, since I've used it on systems with hard drives larger than 528 megs. Obviously there's some sort of deeper weirdness going on, but i can't imagine what.
Granted, my specific problem may be related to the Thinkpad being oddly constructed. Some of these have BIOSs that don't report hard drive geometry, etc, tho this isn't one of them.
But the hard drive limitation sticks out like a sore thumb.
All I can say is, What's the deal?? Aren't there technical docs, even magazine articles about 10 years old that detail how Microsoft and IBM got around those sorts of limitations? I remember lengthy discussions about int13h, etc, adnausium in Byte, PC Mag, etc.
Is it a lack of time? developer apathy? What's the excuse? It seems like these are problems that have been overcome before, that are probably documented somewhere.
I guess I've said what i had to say. Please don't think I'm trying to be a jerk about this.
Re:Network Redirector WHERE IS SHUCDX ? (Score:1)
It might help network redirector effort.
Thanks
Re:Linux for windows. (Score:1)
I have a shiny new 27 gig drive that my fiancee gave me for Christmas. Partitioned like so:
- /dev/hda1: ~16 megabytes, ext2, type 83, mounted on
/boot. This is where I store my kernel(s). LILO is mounted in the superblock of this partition and presents the boot menu from there. - /dev/hda2: ~13 gigs, vfat. Windows 98.
- /dev/hda3: ~13 gigs, ext2, type 83. Mounted on /
- /dev/hda4: ~128 megs, swap, type 82.
So you see, you neither need to rely on a Microsoft operating system to kick-start your Linux boot-up nor put LILO in your MBR. I'll grant you, though, that your method has some conveniences that mine lacks. (Namely, I was able to pick out my partitioning scheme before there was any data on the drive.)It's not my intention to come off as snotty or arrogant; I just wanted to point out there is an alternative.
Cheers.
Better DOS than DOS? (Score:3)
And, relatedly, do you see places where MS seemed to plan to make DOS better, but instead let it languish while they worked towards Windows?
Re:Embedded? (Score:1)
Re:lots of dos software available (Score:1)
Scheduler for DOS (Score:1)
Here's my implementation:
void scheduler (void) {
}
Ha haha.
DOS doesn't even have a scheduler, so you can't laugh at what isn't there.
DOS is essentially a program loader with some hardware abstractions. This is a very useful environment for a great many devices. You seem to think that the lack of multitasking is a huge problem. In the embedded world, a lot of things are built in hardware, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a TCP chip someday for these embedded devices. Anyway, for low datarate devices, DOS can handle TCP just fine.
But, I wouldn't want to be the one building a DOS microwave oven...
Re: (Score:1)
Clean Rewrite (Score:1)
Hrm, I'm not sure, I do think they would have had to have rewriten quite a bit though to get it to work in windows... For instance, int21 (hex) can be used to write to graphical DOS boxes, and uses Windows' 32bit file access mode (with cashing, DMA, etc). But who knows exactly how it works?
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
it dosn't run *on* it (Score:1)
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Packet Drivers & tcp/ip Stacks (Score:5)
Looking through the FreeDOS software lists I don't see any mention of packet drivers, tcp/ip stacks, or pppd implementations. Are there any plans of integrating some form of tcp/ip network connectivity in future versions of FreeDOS? If so, would it be easier to setup then what is presently available?
Keep up the good work, I've been watching FreeDOS for a while, and I'm looking forward to it's final release.
Re:You're ignorant... (Score:1)
mode co 80 [enter]
and tell me that isn't a DOS prompt... Looks a hell of a lot like win 3.1 to me with a "nice" little graphic displayed at the end to confuse people.
What the hell does that prove? Do you know anything about Operating System Design? With Enlightenment, Linux Can "Look" like MacOS, does that mean it is MacOS? Clearly not.
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Re:dos kernel? (Score:1)
Yeh, your right, what was I thinking. After All, I've never done any pure assembly coding for windows only pure-DOS! What would I know. The only programming I've done for windows has been in C++!
I'm going to give you step by step directions on how to see that Win9x is still just a shell over the top of DOS, just like Win3.1....
WTF? You think I don't know what msdos.sys's BOOTGUI option does? Do you think I'm a moron? Let me ask you, what the hell does that have to do with whether or not windows is a shell for DOS, and why the hell wouldn't I just hit the F8 key at boot? BeOS starts in MacOS, NT can run in Linux, and Linux can run in NT.
Lets play another game. Find the file called Loadlin.com on your distro's CD. I know Red Hat has it. Copy the Linux kernel to a DOS partition and type "Loadlin.com Linux.krl or" whatever. What happens? Why? Linux boots from DOS!!!! I guess that means Linux is just a shell for dos! I'm sure Linus will be surprised.
Oh? What's that? You've never heard of loadlin.com? I guess you must not know very much about Linux then.
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
works just fine (Score:1)
Windows is not DOS, Windows does not run 'on top' of DOS.
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
basicaly (Score:1)
The part about the drivers is true though. It's a little muddled, but Saying that windows is a shell for dos is patently wrong.
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Re:8-bit x86? (Score:1)
Um... Ok...
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Re:it dosn't run *on* it (Score:1)
1. Open up MSDOS.SYS and set BootGUI=0.
2. Delete C:\WINDOWS\LOGO*.SYS.
3. Reboot
You will see Windows start up at a DOS command prompt. Type 'WIN' to start Win9x. To get back to DOS, choose Shutdown from the Start Menu. You will be returned to a DOS prompt, ala Win3.1.
If this doesn't prove Win9x is built on a DOS kernel, I don't know what does!
DOS "Kernel"? (Score:1)
It is just a bunch of system calls thru INT 21H - and hardly does anything the modern OS like Linux and NT do...no scheduling, no concurrency, no paging, no protection, etc. (shell doesn't count)
People are free to add "TSR" programs (basically extending the system calls) and redirect the interrupt vectors - basically extending the OS.
I view Win3.x and Win9x as ways DOS is extended - they become one with DOS - and added layers on top of it. Just that this extension puts the processor into 32-bit protected mode and stays so.
pow! (Score:1)
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Re:it dosn't run *on* it (Score:1)
That's because your an idiot. I already covered a reply like that here [slashdot.org]. I notice you've used the words built and on to describe the relationship between windows and DOS. All you produce is anecdotal evidence for it. Editing config files proves nothing about the underlying structure of an operating system
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
FreeDOS Compatibility / Hooks? (Score:1)
---
Also, maybe we should try to interview the DOSEmu guys sometime, 'cause I have more questions for them.
DOSEmu issues (not necessarily your problem
The stuff I've had the biggest problems with under DOSEmu are probably Sound Support, DPMI, Video Support, and Mouse Support, in that order.
I've managed to get MIDI working before (but I want to try it through Timidity)
I've gotten sound on Star Control 2, (b/c it does DMA writes) and that's about it for sound. Other applications detect it, but can't use it, or they hang.
(I realize there isn't much sound code fleshed out there...
I had DPMI problems under OpenDOS, and when I tried FreeDOS it probably wasn't as far along as it is now. (good thing I still own MS-DOS 6.22
Video much over 320x200 generally doesn't work well for me, I don't know much about this in DOSEmu. Also palette support in X could use some work.
And I had fun configuring the mouse options, and deciding whether I wanted to fake a Serial port and use the Microsoft drivers, or trust gpm to do it for me. I've gotten varying results, but eventually it works.
Also, how's the DOSEmu project going, if anyone knows? I saw an update to the stable stuff, but nothing in development for a while. Do they need fresh blood sacrifices, or have people just lost interest?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:basicaly (Score:1)
On one hand you have Windows calling unmasked DOS and BIOS functions -- On the other hand DOS functions in the Win DOS box are actually calling Windows VXD drivers for most functionality.
In Undocumented Windows 95, the author makes the point that this is actually how Windows 3.1 worked too, although Microsoft and 3rd parties neglected to ship VXD/386 drivers for most devices, relying instead on DOS drivers. (The notible exceptions were WfW networking and some sound card stuff.)
In this light, Windows 9x is actually a kinda neat kludge that preserves 95% backward compatibility, even on the driver level, while providing the same API services as the "real" OS (NT). Unfortunately, Microsoft has put so much investment into the DOS/Win platform (USB, DirectX, etc), that many Win folk are running it even thought they wouldn't have any backward-compatibility issues with NT. (And on top of that memory requirements are now basically the same for both 98 and NT, eliminating another reason for the existance of Windows 9x.)
--
Re:You're ignorant... (Score:1)
Actually both things can happen. By default, your first theory is how it works -- Windows just unloads, leaving you with the original version of DOS that loaded into conventional memory on boot. (Of course, this doesn't prove that Windows 9x isn't an operating system, just that it bootstraps from DOS. But any idjot could have told you that.)
However, you can also configure it to behave like theory #2 -- just customize the DOSMODE.PIF file, and Windows will reboot into "DOS Mode" (err, actually DOS) with your custom config.sys/autoexec.bat. Typing EXIT reboots the computer back into Windows. This feature is there to allow easier access to apps that won't run under Windows but require special drivers.
--
Re:the really longterm usefulness of DOS (Score:1)
Just because the OS is uninteresting, it would be a shame to toss out a ton of interesting applications. (Of course, Games are interesting too!)
--
Can FreeDOS run native on non-x86-CPUs? (Score:1)
On the other hand, FreeDOS might be an efficient OS on embedded systems and palmtops, perhaps more efficient than Linux and ELKS (the 16-bit Linux kernel subset) if hardware capabilities are seriously limited.
Re:Clean Room Reversing (Score:1)
I know that people on
Go for the real thing and reverse-engineer IBM PC DOS v7. It's 100% MS-DOS compatible and runs on more hardware (MCA, ThinkPads) to boot.
--
Re:Clean Room Reversing (Score:1)
Re:Clean Room Reversing (Score:1)
--
Re:dos kernel? (Score:1)
Besides, most people consider an "OS" as something that loads programs. But then again, most people wouldn't reply to some AC who would compare the compexity of Doom to that of Windows.
--
Re:DOSemu question (Score:1)
...but the performance is really incredible. When I tested it with the BYTEMarks, it would only be a couple percent slower than the real thing, and in anything involving disk access, it's faster, because Linux caches the drives so much better than DOS ever did. And as I've mentioned before, you can tell DOSEmu the maximum amount of RAM you want it to use, but it should never start out using more than 4MB or so, unlike VMWare.
The I/O seems to work fine the way they have it, and this is of course bug-for-bug compatible with the original. But yes, I would be very happy if it handled video better! Maybe some X DGA stuff. Of course, sometime I'd love to work on this stuff myself, but not yet... it seems like I'm always going to school or working. Oh well, I'll just have to find the time to needlessly confuse myself with the source code.
And yes, programs fiddle with DOS data structures in memory all the time. That's why DOSEmu just gives them their memory and makes sure they don't access beyond it or touch anything really sensitive, otherwise giving crufty old programs free reign to check whatever stupid memory locations they can... It's the easiest way to make sure it all works. I bet my code that set the BIOS bits (and messed with the CAPS/NUM/SCROLL LOCK lights) doesn't work except *maybe* in raw keyboard mode, but I should try it sometime.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:dos kernel? (Score:1)
Good for you. I'll admit, I've never coded assembly for windows (and strenuously avoided assembly for DOS). Never found it very enjoyable.
WTF? You think I don't know what msdos.sys's BOOTGUI option does? Do you think I'm a moron? Let me ask you, what the hell does that have to do with whether or not windows is a shell for DOS, and why the hell wouldn't I just hit the F8 key at boot? BeOS starts in MacOS, NT can run in Linux, and Linux can run in NT.
Most people don't know about it, or what it does. So, yes, until you've shown otherwise, I assume you don't know.
As for why not just hit F8, the reasponse could simply be: "Well, that's windows just loading command.com at the end, instead of completing the startup." By editing that file, it can not be simply running command.com at the end. Something else must be making it stop.
Lets play another game. Find the file called Loadlin.com on your distro's CD. I know Red Hat has it. Copy the Linux kernel to a DOS partition and type "Loadlin.com Linux.krl or" whatever. What happens? Why? Linux boots from DOS!!!! I guess that means Linux is just a shell for dos! I'm sure Linus will be surprised.
Boring game. Played it in the past, even got the t-shirt somewhere. Had to use it until the AWE32 drivers were done enough that I didn't have to use the dos utilities to initialize the card. Did it for a year or so, roughly. Anyway, the point remains the same: DOS happens well before windows ever pops up. And, from the evidence I've seen, the relationship between the two is still the same: Windows 9x is nothing but a shell which runs on top of DOS.
Oh? What's that? You've never heard of loadlin.com? I guess you must not know very much about Linux then.
Actually, you're right. I don't know much about Linux. However, in making that statement, you have to remember that I compare myself to people like Linus, Alan Cox, et al.
As for why I said you've never poked around in that section of the Windows internals before: Based on the evidence I've seen, Windows is a DOS shell. And with a complete lack of information to prove otherwise by you in your original post, I had to assume you'd never before seen the BootGUI line.
Re:the really longterm usefulness of DOS (Score:1)
FreeDOS versus DR-DOS (Score:2)
As DR-DOS is a complete, finished, and very polished system, what would happen to the FreeDOS project if this happened? Keep going, try to merge the FreeDOS tree into DR-DOS, vice versa, or what?
GEM is going strong (see www.deltasoft.com) and I like to think there's life in DOS yet. With a GUI like GEM, a multitasker (such as DesqView) and maybe even an X server (like DesqView/X) it makes a good thin client OS.
Re:You're ignorant... (Score:1)
Re:dos kernel? (Score:1)
On a related note, a soundcard not supported by Windows can have its DOS drivers initialize it before Win9x loads. Or a disk controller, or a CD-ROM drive attached to a legacy soundcard, or whatever. Windows will call the DOS system calls to access said devices. But why are we arguing? Who cares?
Re:works just fine (Score:2)
True. But just like Linux, Windows needs a bootloader, ergo: Without DOS, there is no Windows.
All they did was alter MSDOS 7.0 so you couldn't use an alternative DOS (well, they tried to). Win95 and Win98 don't need a specific MS DOS any more than Win 3.1 did, which is one of the reasons why Caldera is suing them. They locked them out of the DOS business by partially melding it into Win9x.
As for your "slow" loading -- remember, DOS is a very simple OS. You need to load a cache like Norton Cache or one of the MSDOS cache programs, like smartdrive (MSDOS 6.0 and up included a lot of external Norton Utilities functionality, like defrag and scandisk -- they were sued over this too, as they ripped off stacker's doublespace technology).
---
Re:the really longterm usefulness of DOS (Score:1)
Unless, of course, you stumble upon a secret cache of 540MB disks and 386 motherboards.
--
Re:I have a question. (Score:1)
Re:FreeDOS competitors (Score:1)
Re:Well... (Score:1)
It is truly disorienting for a couple of minutes.
DOS function calls (Score:1)
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Re:Clean Room Reversing (Score:1)
What you lookin' at me like that for?